Oral Answers to Questions

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Social Exclusion

Robert Flello: What contribution the personalisation of public services is making to tackling social exclusion.

Hilary Armstrong: Personalisation is crucial to the effectiveness of public services and tackling social exclusion. We have taken significant steps forward, for example, through direct payments for disabled people and those requiring social services. Personalisation also requires good information and advice to support individuals in deciding what is appropriate to meet their needs, and the Government are taking steps to ensure that that is available.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response. What involvement and assistance are the Government giving to the voluntary community sector to enable it to work with the public services in the state sector to support the most hard to reach individuals?

Hilary Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right that we have to work closely with the voluntary community sector, especially to reach people who have, for whatever reason, become excluded from many aspects of our life. We are working closely with the third sector to ensure that it is able to provide services and act in different ways. One of the results emerging from the third sector action plan, which we published last November, is that we will train 2,000 commissioners in the public sector to work effectively with the third sector to provide services in a very personalised way. When people have a real problem, they need someone who will be able to engage with them, and that is often someone in their local community or voluntary organisation.

Patrick Cormack: I am sure that the right hon. Lady's sentiments are impeccable, but I wish that I could say the same for her language. Can we start putting these things into language that the ordinary people of this country can understand?

Hilary Armstrong: I am really not sure to which bit of my language the hon. Gentleman objects. The voluntary and community sector knows what we are talking about and it wants to be involved in designing and delivering services. That is what commissioning means and the sector understands it well. It wants to work with us to ensure that it can play its part in providing real opportunities for the socially excluded.

Tony Wright: It is possible that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) was referring to the word "personalisation". Will my right hon. Friend take great care to ensure that when we speak of personalisation we do not really mean depersonalisation? I remind her that in the tax credits system we have had to bring back case workers—real people—because relying on computers did not provide a satisfactory service for tax credit claimants. Let us ensure that personalisation means that people have the ability to contact real people about their problems in the round.

Hilary Armstrong: I understand absolutely what my hon. Friend means. Personalisation does mean that an individual who has a particular challenge—be they a child in care, someone with a disability or an elderly person—is able to have contact with someone who will really address their individual needs. I ask my hon. Friend to look at what is being done by the Department for Education and Skills in relation to schools, where individual tuition will be given to those children who are not making the grade, as it were, in their reading. This whole agenda is aimed at ensuring that we address such problems in a very personal way.

Danny Alexander: Does the Minister agree that one of the biggest barriers to truly personalised back-to-work support services is the fact that the range of support available to claimants depends too much on which benefit they claim, and not enough on individual needs? In his recent review, David Freud discussed moving towards a single working age benefit. Does she agree that that would help to break down some of those barriers, and make it easier to ensure that the help that people get depends on their needs and not on the benefit that they claim?

Hilary Armstrong: That is how the pathways to work scheme operates. It looks much more closely at the individual needs of unemployed people, and addresses those needs accordingly. I was interested to hear that David Freud had returned to the idea of a single benefit. Many previous Governments have considered that possibility and found it very difficult to achieve. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is looking at that option but, regardless of whether we are able to introduce it, we must still achieve much more personalisation. That is especially true of the unemployed, as we must determine—and then overcome—the barriers that prevent a person from getting back to work.

John McFall: The Minister will be aware of the groundbreaking report on free automated teller machines produced before Christmas and supported by industry, consumer groups and Parliament. In her discussions with local authorities, will she encourage them to try to attain the target of 600 free ATMs in low-income areas, as people who are excluded financially are excluded socially as well?

Hilary Armstrong: I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. The Department is part of a working group being set up by the Treasury, and I assure him that we will pursue the agenda that he and his Committee raised in that very useful report. I promise to keep in touch with him about our progress.

Oliver Heald: The Minister says that the voluntary sector has a vital role to play in tailoring public services to individual needs, but there is a problem. The Charity Commission has said that the terms offered by the state to voluntary sector providers undermine their financial stability and independence. Only 12 per cent. of charities are being paid the full costs of their services, and only a quarter of them felt able to make decisions without pressure from public sector funders. When will the Government properly trust the voluntary sector to do the job at a local level?

Hilary Armstrong: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has intervened, as I thought that the way that he voted last week in respect of a Bill designed to increase voluntary sector involvement signalled a change of direction on his part. Perhaps he was not happy at being asked to vote that way, and so is renewing his support for the voluntary sector this week. We have discussed the question of full cost recovery at length with the voluntary and community sectors, and the Charity Commission recognises that there has been significant improvement. The situation is getting better and, with the hon. Gentleman's support, will continue to do so. However, he had an opportunity to support the voluntary sector last week, and did not take it.

Social Enterprises

Mary Creagh: What steps the Government are taking to support the work of social enterprises.

Angela Smith: What discussions she has had on encouraging participation in co-operatives and social enterprise initiatives.

Edward Miliband: In November 2006, the Government launched a social enterprise action plan to support the work of social enterprises and co-ops, both as ethical businesses in the private sector and as partners delivering public services. Key parts of the plan included a higher profile for social enterprise in the school curriculum, improved advice and finance for social enterprises starting up, and greater access to finance to support their work.

Mary Creagh: The ABLE partnership in my constituency is funded by the green business network, Wakefield primary care trust and the social care charity Turning Point. The partnership is transforming 100 acres of brownfield site donated by Yorkshire Water into a hazel coppice and a fish farm which, in three years' time, will produce Wakefield's first caviar. Will the Minister join me on a visit to the environmentally sustainable transformation achieved by that social partnership, which demonstrates how Wakefield is leading the way in social enterprise?

Edward Miliband: I look forward to joining my hon. Friend in tasting Wakefield caviar; I am sure that it will be a great experience. She is right about the great work that social enterprises do in reaching out to the most excluded people in our society. The key is that the state should continue to fund public services adequately, and not use social enterprises as an excuse to abdicate its responsibility in that regard. In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office said, we support the work of social enterprises in deed as well as in word, and that is why it was so regrettable that the Opposition voted against the Offender Management Bill last week.

Angela Smith: Surely local government also has a big role to play in developing social enterprise, so has my hon. Friend considered how best to encourage it to play its full part in that agenda?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Much of the income for the third sector comes from local government. The key thing is culture change on the ground, so that commissioners understand the role that social enterprises can play. We see that in waste and recycling, for example, where we want councils not just to go for the conventional private sector option but to understand the contribution that third sector and social enterprise organisations can make. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office said, our programme for training 2,000 commissioners is so important, because that will achieve the culture change on the ground that we need.

Paul Rowen: Coming from Rochdale, I would much rather the Minister used the word "co-operative". What is he doing to support credit unions? I commend to him the work of the Rochdale credit union, Streetcred, which in the light of the Farepak collapse has in the past few weeks launched a Christmas savings scheme. Does he think that there is a role for such groups in helping people to save?

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the role played by credit unions, which I, too, see in my constituency. The Treasury is conducting a review of the co-operative sector, which has been called for over a long period and will include the work of credit unions, to consider how the structure can be reformed to the advantage of co-ops and credit unions. Many of the most successful social enterprises are themselves co-ops, so our general work to support social enterprises will help co-ops, too.

Ben Wallace: In my constituency, a number of social enterprises are run by tenants of the Duchy of Lancaster. When will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster embrace her other role as guardian of the tenants and of the land she holds on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen and visit those tenants and social enterprises, instead of skulking away in Downing street?

Edward Miliband: Regrettably, I am not in charge of my right hon. Friend's diary, but I know that she has visited many tenant farmers and others, such as those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. I am sure that she has heard his request and will give it the consideration that it deserves.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Slave Trade

Mary Creagh: If he will make a statement on progress on plans to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade.

John Prescott: The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hosted an evening at No. 10 Downing street in January to launch the Government's package to mark 200 years since Parliament passed legislation—brought in by the Member of Parliament for Hull, William Wilberforce—to outlaw the slave trade in the British empire.
	The Government's approach to the bicentenary has been to encourage and facilitate grass-roots organisations, faith groups, the voluntary sector and local authorities—particularly in the port cities of Liverpool, Bristol, London and Hull, whose histories are so closely linked with this important event—to commemorate the year in a manner appropriate to their own communities. A national service of commemoration will be held in Westminster abbey on 27 March, and the House authorities are arranging for an exhibition to take place in Westminster Hall, to be launched on 23 May.

Mary Creagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating the regional Trades Union Congress for Yorkshire and the Humber, which is holding a conference on 23 March to mark the abolition of slavery. Our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has signed the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, but does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this opportunity is the best time for us to ratify the convention and give protection to the 4,000 women and children who have been trafficked into this country for sexual slavery?

John Prescott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the role of the Yorkshire conference organised by the TUC. It is most appropriate and reflects the fact that 200 years ago other people, such as workers in various Yorkshire towns and other parts of the UK, were campaigning to get rid of that terrible trade. It gives us the opportunity to remember in our commemorations many other people who played a part in getting rid of slavery—a terrible trade of human trafficking. I hope that not only will we sign the convention, as the Prime Minister said, but that we will discuss how it is to be implemented. The important part is ratification; indeed, this afternoon I am meeting the Home Secretary—my mate—to discuss that.

Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that William Wilberforce—about whom I wrote a short life history and my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is about to produce a magisterial work—was in fact the Member for Yorkshire, not Hull, at the time of the abolition? Does he agree that the most fitting parliamentary memorial would be to erect a statue to William Wilberforce within the parliamentary precincts?

John Prescott: I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There are a number of groups looking at various statues that could be erected to people who were involved in the campaign. I will be encouraging that. As for the writing of the article or booklet, by himself and indeed by the—I was going to say the Leader of the Opposition; I should be careful—the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), I will attend the launch of the book in Hull to commemorate that event. I am looking forward to that. I can assure him that I will not put in a bill of £16,000 to attend.

Diana Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that young people often know how to celebrate most effectively and with an international perspective? Does he agree that the fact that a group in Hull known as Freedom Road has produced a three-track CD to mark Wilberforce, the proceeds of which will be used to bring a blind choir from Sierra Leone to Hull to sing with Freedom Road, truly marks this as an international celebration?

John Prescott: It is important that young people are involved in the commemoration. Indeed, we are organising a debate that could probably take place in the House—if the authorities agree—involving young people from various parts of the Commonwealth, who will discuss not only the commemoration of the abolition of slavery, but the whole issue of the human trafficking that is going on today. The activities of Hull in twinning with Freetown, and the schools that are involved—that is called class-to-class connection—form an important part of that. When I visited Sierra Leone only a few weeks ago, I saw the important role played by the British Council in encouraging schools and local authorities to come together. That would be a worthwhile legacy to come out of the commemorations this year.

William Hague: May I express the strong support of the Opposition for the commemoration by local authorities, schools, trade unions and the Government, in the bipartisan spirit of the bicentenary of the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade? Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is a time to remember the terrible crimes and unspeakable inhumanity of the Atlantic slave trade, but also to note that it was the early development in Britain of a free Parliament, a free press and a public conscience that allowed our country to lead the way among European nations in removing that scourge from the earth?

John Prescott: I could not agree more with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. On my recent visits to Ghana and Sierra Leone, I found it interesting to see those two independent Commonwealth countries commemorating, not only in Ghana the 50th anniversary of independence, but a piece of what could be said to be colonial legislation passed by this Parliament 200 years ago to abolish the slave trade. I very much agree with what he says and we shall do all that we can to see that the commemorations extend further than this country. I am glad that he also said that it was a wider level of support in the community that brought the abolition about, but Mr. Wilberforce was the man who was effective in bringing the legislation to the House.

William Hague: Would not the best monument to the efforts of 200 years ago be a cross-party resolve to confront the traffickers involved in modern human trafficking, in its new and wicked form? We welcomed and called for the Government's announcement that they will ratify the Council of Europe's convention on trafficking in human beings. Will the Deputy Prime Minister say whether the Government have any plans to strengthen the protection of victims through safe houses and special helplines, as advocated by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary? Will he establish with the Home Secretary a UK border police force, without which the war against traffickers cannot be won?

John Prescott: Again, I agree with an awful lot of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am having a meeting with the Home Secretary later this afternoon to look at exactly what we have to do to implement and ratify the Council of Europe's convention. That is important. Some of the measures that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to are being actively considered by the Home Office and, as he knows, it is about to announce its action plan to meet some of the requirements. Hopefully, the House will then be able to debate the proposals involved. We have already made some proposals in regard to housing, which is indeed one of the recommendations of the Council of Europe's convention.

Departmental Travel

Ann Winterton: What his departmental expenditure on travel has been in the past six months.

Simon Burns: How many foreign visits he has undertaken since May 2006.

John Prescott: All overseas and domestic travel will be accounted for in the usual way.
	In the past six months, I have undertaken a number of overseas visits on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in addition to those already announced to the House. Among the most recent was a visit to Romania and Bulgaria in January, when I had meetings with the Prime Ministers and Presidents of both those countries following their accession to the European Union. We discussed key areas of co-operation, such as managed access to the labour market for different categories of workers in the European Union.
	Last week, I met representatives of the World Health Organisation in Geneva to discuss the serious implications of climate change for public health. I had discussions with a number of UN agencies, including the International Labour Organisation, about people trafficking and the Government's intention to sign the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings.

Ann Winterton: The Deputy Prime Minister has been given a role in responding to climate change. He has given us a litany of the travel that he has undertaken in the past six months, yet he has not answered my question about the cost of that travel—it is a considerable cost to the public purse. Does he have any concerns about the environmental impact of such travel? While the Government have a carbon offsetting scheme, which is worthy in its own right, the cost of that is also borne by the British taxpayer.

John Prescott: The hon. Lady is making a point about the cost of travel, and she will get the figures for the year, which will be produced in the normal way. I have compared our travel costs with those of the previous Administration, as set out in a parliamentary reply. Between 1993 and 1996, the average Government expenditure on overseas travel was £6.6 million, while between 2003 and 2006—the last three years of this Government—the expenditure was more than £1 million a year less. We not only spend less, but we are more effective in international operations, especially on climate change.

Simon Burns: Has the Deputy Prime Minister noticed that the list of ministerial responsibilities describes his own as:
	"Oversight and co-ordination of Government policy across the full range of domestic ... areas"?
	Does he think that the Prime Minister allows him to wander around the world so as to fill up his day because he does not seem to have enough to do on domestic policy, which is, by definition, the job that he is appointed to do?

John Prescott: The job that I do is at the request of the Prime Minister, as was true of every Deputy Prime Minister, whether that was Mr. Heseltine acting at the request of Mr. Major, or me. The job is defined by the Prime Minister—that is what comes with the title of Deputy Prime Minister.
	As for travelling abroad, what I am doing is relevant to the Cabinet Committees for which I have some responsibility. I mentioned human trafficking in reply to a question asked by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). It was appropriate for me to have a meeting with the ILO and other UN bodies in Geneva to inform myself of the proper measures that the Government should be introducing so that we could implement them. It is relevant to travel to learn what other parties and Governments are doing right across a range of issues—climate change and others—so that we can give leadership, as we do, in all those areas.

Hugh Bayley: What use do the Government make of video conferencing and other new technology to avoid the need for domestic and international travel for face-to-face meetings? What impact does that have on reducing the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change?

John Prescott: By definition, using the available technology leads to a reduction in carbon emissions. It might shock the House to know that I have it in my office. I use that technology from time to time, but there are times when face-to-face meetings are needed, which means travel. Indeed, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has travelled to Europe to discuss climate change and other matters. In reality, although a lot of fuss is made about this, air travel is necessary in the global world.

Vincent Cable: How far do travel costs explain the extraordinary 30 per cent. inflationary increase in the Deputy Prime Minister's supplementary estimate, taking it to £2.5 million? When public spending growth and increases in nurses' pay are being kept below the rate of inflation, how can he justify that extravagance?

John Prescott: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's profession is accountancy. If that is his reading of the figures, I would suspect most of his other arguments on the economy. In reality, as he must know if he has looked at the figures, there are no extra costs involved whatever. It is a transfer that, according to the auditor, needs to be made. Instead of other Departments paying, the figure is now attributed to my Department. Exactly the same money is used, in terms of total expenditure; it is just apportioned differently. I am amazed that he, as an accountant, did not know that simple fact.

Slavery

Anne Snelgrove: If he will make a statement on the debate that he is seeking to organise for young people from Commonwealth countries on the consequences of slavery.

John Prescott: Mr. Speaker, you will recall the enthusiasm and the high quality of the discussion that took place when, as Deputy Speaker, you chaired a debate for young people whom I had brought together some years ago to examine environmental policy. I am hoping that a similar debate will be arranged as part of our plans to commemorate the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade. I am discussing with various authorities, including the British Council, which does excellent work on the issue, the possibility of getting young people from a number of Commonwealth countries, as well as younger people from across the United Kingdom, to participate in that debate, which I hope will take place in the Houses of Parliament. The debate will allow our young people, who live in an increasingly interconnected world, to share their thoughts and experiences of life in a discussion on the growing problem of human trafficking. They will be able to reflect on the past, and look to the future.

Anne Snelgrove: My right hon. Friend is right to seek to hold that debate. Will he inform the House of how his discussions with young people in Sierra Leone and Gambia have informed his thinking on the debate, and will he meet me to discuss how the subject of modern-day slavery could play a part in the discussions?

John Prescott: I most certainly will meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matters. Indeed, the House will have a chance on 20 March to debate the issue of slavery. The importance of bringing young people together was impressed on me during our visit to the classrooms and schools in Sierra Leone and Ghana. In a powerful commemoration of the bicentenary, a slave scene was enacted, in which people dressed in chains, like the slaves of that time, and were chained to a person with a whip. One of the lines that was said, to which everybody should give thought, was that not every white man was guilty and not every black man was innocent. In those circumstances, if we saw the broader picture of the problem of slavery, we could start a proper debate about the issues, instead of about the total shame that we feel about the actions that took place more than 200 years ago.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

James McGovern: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 March.

Tony Blair: I am afraid that before listing my engagements I must ask the whole House, again, to join me in sending our condolences to the family and friends of those members of our armed forces who have fallen in the line of duty in the past week. Private Jonathon Wysoczan of the 1st Battalion the Staffordshire Regiment died on Saturday as result of injuries sustained last week in Iraq. He was a brave soldier and we pay tribute to him. We also send our condolences to the family and friends of Lance Bombardiers Liam McLaughlin and Ross Clark, both of 29 Commando Regiment, Royal Artillery, and of Marine Benjamin Reddy of 42 Commando Royal Marines, who were killed in Afghanistan helping to ensure that the project on the Kajaki dam went ahead. That will bring electricity to 1.8 million people in the south of Afghanistan and make a huge difference to the lives of people there and to the economy. The work that they were doing is of enormous importance, and I think our armed forces who are, at the present time, in the south of Afghanistan are displaying a heroism that, even given the rich history of the British military, is almost unparalleled, and we pay tribute to all of them.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

James McGovern: First, may I associate not only myself but, I am sure, all Members on this side of the House with the Prime Minister's message of condolence?  [Interruption.] Members on both sides of the House; I beg hon. Members' pardon.
	€50 to visit a GP; €85 per month in prescription charges; 25 per cent. VAT; 50 per cent. income tax; and, hardest of all for some people to swallow, £8 for a pint of beer; does my right hon. Friend believe that the Scottish people would accept those characteristics, all of which are drawn from small European countries regularly used for the purposes of comparison by Members of Parliament who advocate independence for Scotland?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend makes his point very well. The truth of the matter is that England benefits from Scotland being in the United Kingdom, and Scotland benefits from being in the United Kingdom. In the past few years, we have seen dramatic falls in unemployment and rises in employment. Some 200,000 extra jobs have been created, and there is a strong Scottish economy. About £11 billion-worth more money is spent on public services in Scotland and it is raised by taxes, so wrenching Scotland from the UK would be very serious for the Scottish economy and the living standards of the Scottish people.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the soldier who died following his service in Iraq. We pay tribute, too, to Lance Bombardier Ross Clark, Lance Bombardier Liam McLaughlin and Marine Benjamin Reddy, who were killed in Afghanistan. They died taking part in a NATO operation enforcing a UN mandate, and helping a democratically elected Government. As the Prime Minister said, they were in the front line against terrorism.
	This week, NATO launched a significant offensive in the south of the country. With spring approaching, many people expect the intensity of the fighting to increase. Are the Prime Minister and the Cabinet confident that British forces are sufficiently backed by other NATO countries, are properly reinforced and adequately equipped, not just to withstand attack but to secure peace and security throughout Helmand province?

Tony Blair: I believe that the additional contribution that we are making and the contributions of other NATO countries are immensely important. For example, Sweden has made a decision today to reinforce its armed forces in the north of Afghanistan. Other countries are providing assistance for reconstruction and extra equipment such as helicopters and so on. All of that is important, but it is fair to say that, yes, of course, we want our NATO partners to do even more, which is why in the meeting in Seville a short time ago we pressed for that, and we will continue to press for it. The important thing about our own reinforcements in Afghanistan is that they are there not just to complete our mission but to protect our troops.

David Cameron: I am grateful for that answer. Britain has 5,500 troops in Afghanistan, but does the Prime Minister agree with me that this year, there will be significant pressure for further reinforcements unless we encourage other NATO countries to do more and, vitally, if we remove the caveats on many of the NATO forces in Afghanistan? Will he update us on progress on those two vital objectives?

Tony Blair: As I said, other countries such as Australia are committing forces and additional equipment. However, it is important that we recognise that the extra 1,400 troops whom we are sending in as reinforcements will play a vital role, not just in securing the southern part of Afghanistan but in ensuring that our own troops are better protected. It is correct that some countries have lifted caveats, but others have not, and we continue to press them to do so the entire time. Yes, of course, I want more to be done by other NATO countries, and that will be part of informal discussions, I do not doubt, at the European summit as well as in any NATO meeting. In the end, we must make sure that we discharge our responsibility, which is not dependent on what others can do with us, although we press them to do more. We believe—this is probably the reality—that it is only the British forces who can make a real difference in south Afghanistan. It is tough for them, as we can see. Anyone who has read the accounts of what British forces are doing, particularly in the northern part of Helmand, will have read an extraordinary story of heroism and courage. We believe that we have to do it—we think that it is right for the world—and, yes, we will continue to press others to come in with us. In the end, however, we are doing what we need to do, and we are proud of doing it.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister is right that our troops are doing a magnificent job in the south, but with reference to his last answer in particular, we know that NATO commanders in the south have asked for two additional battle groups. We are providing one of them, but last week the Secretary of State for Defence was unable to say who would provide the other. Can the Prime Minister update us on that? More generally, given that last year in Helmand we saw attacks on soldiers increasing, high levels of insurgency, a rising poppy crop and the governor dismissed, how confident is he that over the next six months we will see real progress on all those fronts?

Tony Blair: We should not ignore the progress that has already been made. The Afghan economy is double what it was a few years back. There are millions more girls now in school. We have reconstruction projects that are refurbishing schools and opening health clinics in Afghanistan. As important as anything else, it is not just the British forces and the forces of many other nations that are fighting down in the south of Afghanistan and elsewhere—it is an Afghan national army as well, whose capability is being built the whole time. Yes, we must press for the additional battle group from elsewhere. We are continuing to do that. At present we do not know the exact provenance of that battle group, but we are sure that in the end we will be able to get the support that we need. The important thing is to understand, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree, that there has been real progress in Afghanistan. What our troops have been doing there is remarkable, but what the Afghan people themselves have been doing down in the south of Afghanistan is incredible, standing out against the bullies of the Taliban. We know that just a few months ago, for example, a teacher was taken out and executed in front of his class for teaching girls in school. That is the battle of values in which we are engaged. I entirely agree that we need to ensure that the whole world faces up to its responsibility, but I am primarily responsible for our contribution, which I think is right and proportionate. We will continue to work closely with other allies. It is worth pointing out that there are soldiers from many, many other nations working alongside us. They are doing an excellent job as well, and we continue to press for more.

Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend celebrate international women's day by committing the Government to support the private Member's Bill, the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill, introduced in the other place by the Lord Lester of Herne Hill? I recognise that the Bill will not stop families forcing young people into unwanted marriage, but it will send a strong message that we are on the side of the victims of this wicked practice.

Tony Blair: First, it would be right to pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done to make sure that we tackle forced marriages, which are an iniquitous practice. As I think I have indicated, although much has been done, not least the establishment of the forced marriages unit a couple of years ago, which assists about 300 victims of forced marriage a year—I pay tribute to the work of the unit—because we fully support the aims of the private Member's Bill on forced marriage, we are looking to see how we can support the Bill and make sure that it is in order. I know that there is a strong feeling in all parts of the House that we should do all we can to end the practice.

Menzies Campbell: I join the Prime Minister in his expressions of sympathy and condolence. We owe all these brave young men an enduring debt of gratitude. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, that the position of the Attorney-General, in his words, is not maintainable?

Tony Blair: The position of the Attorney-General and the role that he carries out has been in our constitution for hundreds of years and I believe it to be the right role.

Menzies Campbell: In the light of recent controversy in relation to Iraq, BAE and now cash for honours, is it not essential that the functions and responsibilities of the Attorney-General should be separate— [Interruption]—so that decisions about prosecution can be taken entirely independent of Government?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very bad manners to try to shout down a right hon. or an hon. Member.

Tony Blair: No, I am afraid I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mike Gapes: As we prepare to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the European Union's treaty of Rome, will the Prime Minister find time to read an article called "Beware the Berlin Declaration", which calls for this country to leave the European Union? It can be found on the blog Chameleons on Bicycles.

Tony Blair: First, it will be a very good thing for the whole of Europe to celebrate 50 years of the European Union, which has brought peace and prosperity to a continent that used to be ravaged by war. I think that we should celebrate our own position in the European Union. I look forward to going to the European Council tomorrow in order to bring forward proposals for climate change, where I am pleased to say that at least this Government will have some allies in ensuring that the battle against climate change is taken to a proper fruition.

David Cameron: Last night, the BBC broadcast the Prime Minister's political obituary; I am sure that it will be the first of many. In it, his senior foreign policy adviser in No. 10 Downing street, Sir Stephen Wall, speaking of his time working with the Prime Minister, said:
	"You got the very clear impression...that they could not govern without Gordon but they could not really govern with him either".
	Why would someone at the heart of Downing street say that?

Tony Blair: People say many things, particularly after they leave. What I can say is this: fortunately, thanks to the Chancellor's 10-year stewardship of the economy—which I am afraid is the weakness of the right hon. Gentleman's position—he has delivered us the strongest economy, with 2.5 million more jobs, lower interest rates, the lowest unemployment and rising living standards. Actually, I am delighted to have had that record in government.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister is very good at praising the Chancellor, but the Chancellor is not so good at praising the Prime Minister.
	It is not just his senior foreign policy adviser who says this—it is also the Cabinet Secretary, who sat next to him for five years in the Cabinet. Lord Wilson said this about the Chancellor:
	"He states with absolute certainty what the position is...threatening...anyone foolish enough to interrupt...without any hint that"—
	he—"might listen to" other "departments". Does the Prime Minister think that there is any prospect of a return to Cabinet government when the Chancellor takes over?

Tony Blair: As a matter of fact, the best thing about having a strong economy is that it enables one, when one is taking one's Cabinet decisions, to make the investments in health and education, for example, that we want to have. The good thing is that we have had a consistent economic policy.
	Can I give the House an update on the Conservatives' policy on the married couples allowance? A few days ago, the chairman of the Conservative party was asked whether it would apply— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister get some leeway in these matters.

Tony Blair: Talking about policy making, the chairman of the Conservative party says that married couples allowance applies to couples without children. The Tory leader's office then says:
	"Francis was confronted on a particular point and was trying to answer the question...but he wasn't sure...the truth is that it is...still being worked out."
	Then a couple of days ago the shadow Chancellor says that he is not sure whether it will apply to married couples without children, but for it to apply to gay couples in a civil partnership, they have to have children. We have this Chancellor with 10 years of a strong economy, and we have that shadow Chancellor with his policy making; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to explain the difference.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister might have noticed that we are ahead on the economy.
	I asked the Prime Minister a question about Cabinet government, but he will not answer, so let us ask the Cabinet. Who thinks that they will have more of a say round the Cabinet table when the Chancellor takes over? Come on—hands up! Is not that the problem—they all know it is going to be dreadful, but none of them has the guts to do anything about it?

Tony Blair: First of all, I should remind the right hon. Gentleman of some experience that we had in the 1980s. Opposition parties can often be ahead in opinion polls in mid-term, but that does not mean that they win an election. In the end, let me tell him what will win an election—strength of policy.
	I just gave an example about the shadow Chancellor, so let me give one about the right hon. Gentleman from his great speech on Europe yesterday in which he said how he was going lead Europe in the battle on climate change. Who is his ally? The ODS party in the Czech Republic, whose founder says that global warming "is a false myth". This is serious politics. The right hon. Gentleman wants to form an alliance with a party that thinks global warming is a false myth and he will not go into the same political room as the Chancellor of Germany, who is the leader of the Conservative party, the President of the European Union and believes that global warming should be tackled. So when it comes to serious policy making, the right hon. Gentleman is simply in the kindergarten. We have got the answers: that is the difference between a serious political party and an Opposition party.

Jane Kennedy: Staying with Europe, did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to watch the outstanding display of football at Anfield stadium last night? Is it not about time that we marked the memory of the late and great Bob Paisley with an honour? Will my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 1038 signed by Members of the House—both red and blue?

Tony Blair: I look forward to reading that. I did watch the match last night. Congratulations to Liverpool, who did absolutely brilliantly. Congratulations also to Chelsea—we should congratulate the blues as well as the reds on this occasion. Let us hope that we have two other teams going through as well— [Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reminds me, there is also Celtic, and we wish it good luck, too.

Stephen Hammond: My constituent, Mrs. Morello, has an 11-year-old son with recognised special educational needs. All the professionals suggest that the right education for her son is an out-of-borough specialised small school. However, reflecting the cost concerns of so many local authorities, they are trying to put him in a mainstream local school. After 10 years in power, when will the Prime Minister make the necessary changes to ensure that Mrs. Morello's son and thousands like him get the education that they need and deserve?

Tony Blair: Surely, in the end, it has to be a decision for the local authority. The hon. Gentleman talks about funding, but there is an extra £1,350—I stress, extra—per pupil for the funding of education in his area. Surely it has to be a local authority decision. That has been the case under the previous Government and under this Government. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if a child is best placed in specialist provision, that is where they should go. They should go into mainstream provision only if that is suitable for them. I do say again, however, that it has got to be a decision for the local education authority.

Ben Chapman: Last week saw declines in all the Wirral stock markets following falls in Shanghai—demonstrating again the global challenge and opportunity that is China today. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the UK is appropriately resourced and institutionally structured to deal with the fact that the world's centre of gravity is moving eastwards, both politically and economically?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend raises an immensely important point. I think that we are well placed, actually, because of our bilateral relationship with China today. I also think that the work done through the G8 and the G8 plus 5, which includes China, is also important. The China taskforce is, of course, an important part of our bilateral relationship. However, as well as that bilateral relationship, the key thing is to recognise that both our alliance with America and our membership of the European Union are important parts of building a strong relationship with a country that will soon comprise 1.3 billion or 1.4 billion people and be the largest economy in the world—a country of immense importance as a superpower in the world. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should make sure that we are well positioned with China. In part, however, for a country such as ours in the early 21st century, that will happen through our alliances as well as on our own merits.

Richard Ottaway: Does the Prime Minister agree that voting in a £10,000 communication allowance for incumbent MPs out of taxpayers' money, without the support of the Opposition, while at the same time lobbying Sir Hayden Phillips to limit the private funding of candidates in those incumbent seats, is nothing short of an abuse of power bordering on corruption?

Tony Blair: As I understand it from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the matter is discussed in the House of Commons Commission and it will come before the House at the end of the month. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will put forward proposals that are just and fair.

Rosemary McKenna: My right hon. Friend will know of the serious concerns about Quiz Call television and shows that have premium lines for interactive viewer participation. Does he agree that ITV has done the right thing in pulling from our screens all its premium line shows for an independent health check? Will he urge all other broadcasters to do the same to ensure that their customers—our constituents—are not being ripped off?

Tony Blair: The point that my hon. Friend raises causes a great deal of concern to many members of the public. I welcome ITV's temporary suspension of all premium rate interactive services on all ITV channels. My hon. Friend will wish to know that the regulatory body for the premium rate telecommunications industry is currently investigating complaints about several television shows, and I understand that the broadcasters are meeting later this week. It is obviously important that they come together with the relevant telecommunications companies and make sure that the service is provided in a reliable and trustworthy way. I understand and share my hon. Friend's concerns.

Robert Wilson: The Prime Minister has fought hard in his party to ensure that parents have a wider choice of schools to which to send their children. Would he have accepted his children being allocated a school place on the basis of a lottery system?

Tony Blair: Whatever system is involved—a catchment area or a lottery—there will always be parents who do not manage to get their first preference, although the vast majority do. For once, I agree with the shadow spokesman on education who said that the most important thing, whatever system is chosen, is to increase the number of good schools. Whereas in 1997 I believe that only 80 secondary schools in the country got more than 70 per cent. good GCSEs—five good GCSEs—today the figure is more than 600. That is a huge improvement in the past 10 years, not least in the area that the hon. Gentleman represents. Of course, there will always be parents who are disappointed but the most important thing is to improve the quality and standards in our schools. That is precisely what the Government are doing.

David Clelland: The White Paper on House of Lords reform lists several countries that have wholly or partly elected second Chambers. In the Prime Minister's view, which of them is governed better than the United Kingdom?

Tony Blair: For obvious reasons, I do not think that I would accept that any could be better governed than the United Kingdom, though that might be open to some dispute. However, I said at the time of the election, and our manifesto stated, that we would try to seek a consensus on House of Lords reform. The purpose of the vote later today is to ascertain whether we can do that. We said that we would facilitate that; that is precisely what we shall try to do.

Pete Wishart: Lord Levy has accepted that he may have offered his opinion about who should be nominated for peerages. In what capacity was that advice offered—as the Prime Minister's middle eastern envoy, his personal friend and tennis partner, or because he is, just coincidentally, the Prime Minister's chief fundraiser?

Tony Blair: For obvious reasons, I can say nothing at all about the issue.
	Let me simply say to the hon. Gentleman that it is extraordinary that the Scottish National party is aiming to be the Government of Scotland after the election on 3 May—that Government will handle the economy, health, education and law and order—yet the SNP has nothing to say about the economy because it knows that independence would wreck the Scottish economy, nothing to offer on health and education, and its law and order policy is a disaster. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are campaigning on a police inquiry conducted by the London Metropolitan police. I think that that says everything about the SNP and its fitness to govern.

Lynda Waltho: Along with hon. Friends, I applaud Monday's announcement of an extra £2 million to tackle domestic violence. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will remain focused on that important policy area, especially on supporting victims through the legal process to bring their attackers to justice?

Tony Blair: I assure my hon. Friend that our strong and co-ordinated set of policies on domestic violence will continue. According to the most recent British crime survey, domestic violence has fallen by about 60 per cent. in the past 10 years. Although more domestic violence offences are being recorded, their prevalence has fallen significantly, partly as a result of our additional investment, and partly, as she says, because we are treating the issue more seriously and offering more protection to people within the courts system. We should maintain our focus on the issue, which continues to be a serious one, as we approach international women's day.

Michael Jack: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs faces a £300 million fine from Brussels, 25,000 single farm payment claims remain unresolved, the policy on bovine TB is, as yet, unresolved, and the Department's budget has been cut by £200 million. May I therefore ask the Prime Minister why the House has not been given the opportunity to debate those matters, bearing in mind that the last agriculture debate was in December 2002?

Tony Blair: I am sure that there will be opportunities for people to raise and debate those issues. We are well aware of the problems that have arisen over payments to farmers, however, and we have said on many occasions that we are doing all that we can to speed up that system. We are not in a position of difficulty with the European Commission. It is also correct that there will be enormous budget pressures on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other Departments. The Conservative party, however, has committed itself to putting half the money that goes on public spending into tax cuts— [Interruption.] Yes, the extra money from growth— [Interruption.] The extraordinary thing is that I seem to know more about Conservative policy than Conservative Members. Their policy is to share the proceeds of growth between tax cuts and spending. Therefore, whatever figure we have for investment, the Conservative party would have less.

Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the people of the Congo on their determined involvement in their first democratic elections for 40 years, which have been strongly supported by our Government. In view of the strategic importance of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Africa, and the fragile state in which it has emerged from conflict in which 4 million died, will he confirm the commitment given in this morning's Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall by the Secretary of State for International Development to continued support and assistance to the DRC's Government, civil society and politicians for the difficult tasks that are ahead of them?

Tony Blair: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work on this issue. We have increased our investment in the DRC from, I think, just under £6 million to almost £70 million. We are doing that precisely to support the democratic process there and to give humanitarian assistance. I hope that people in the country understand that when I refer to that extra investment in Africa, I deliberately use the word "investment". If those countries are riven by civil war and large numbers of people are displaced and become refugees, all the evidence of the modern world is that, sooner or later, that becomes a problem for countries such as ours in Europe. Therefore, when we bring peace and stability to parts of Africa, as with the DRC, that is an investment not only in those countries but in our own future.

Points of Order

Anne Main: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 21 February, in reply to a question about antenatal services, the Prime Minister said:
	"we are also increasing the number of midwives in training."—[ Official Report, 21 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 260.]
	In January 2006, however, we were told by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that the number of students who entered midwifery training during 2004-05 was 2,374. But in October 2006 it was reported that there were 2,220 midwifery training places for 2005-06, which is a fall of 154 training places, and the Council of Deans estimates a further 10 per cent. fall on top of that. What can we do to ensure that the Prime Minister returns to the House to correct the misleading statement that he made in answer to my question?

Mr. Speaker: It would have been unintentional.

Anne Main: Unintentional.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has had a good go at putting the matter on the record as a point of order; it was not really a point of order or a matter for the Chair. I urge her to table more questions to the Prime Minister: she is able to table written questions as well as seeking oral answers.

Andrew Murrison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Health announced that there would be a review of the unfolding disaster that is "Modernising Medical Careers". What indication have you had that the Secretary of State will come to the House to explain her plans, and to tell us why she has supervised so much of the chaos that has been inflicted on junior doctors and our national health service?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the Secretary of State for Health will somehow or other hear of the hon. Gentleman's concern.

BILL PRESENTED

Pensions (unclaimed Assets)

Mr. Frank Field, supported by Dr. Tony Wright, Derek Wyatt, Kate Hoey, Sandra Osborne and David Taylor, presented a Bill to establish an Unclaimed Assets Agency; to confer powers on the Agency to obtain information from banks and building societies relating to unclaimed assets; to make provision for the transfer of a proportion of unclaimed assets to the Agency for distribution among certain members of occupational pension schemes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June, and to be printed. [Bill 74].

Rural Tranquillity

John Penrose: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of an indicator for rural tranquillity; to provide for the protection of rural tranquillity in the planning process; and for connected purposes.
	In the past week, I have distributed tranquillity maps to every Member of Parliament in England. I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that you were not discriminated against because you are a Scottish Member; nor was I discriminating against the Welsh. It is simply that the Bill would apply only to England—unless a Member of either the Scottish or the Welsh Executive has the wit and intelligence to take up the issue, as I hope one of them will.
	The maps that I distributed did something that was both new and importantly different. For the first time ever, they provided a quantified, logically evidenced and robust way of measuring tranquillity across the country. I should pause here to record my thanks to the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which, in concert with some heavyweight academics, has done an enormous amount of work to quantify tranquillity and to provide us with a robust and logically sensible evidence base on which the Bill can be built.
	Before we become too caught up in pretty tranquillity maps, however, we ought to ensure that we understand precisely what "tranquillity" means. Put simply, it is peace and quiet. It is the ability to find a part of the country that is free from intervention by man. Let me give some examples. If you go out at night and look around, do you see street lights or starlight? If you go out looking for peace and quiet, what do you hear, jumbo jets and juggernauts or birdsong? If you want to find a beautiful view and you go out and lift up your eyes unto the hills, do you in fact see hills, or high rises? If you take a deep breath of fresh air, do you smell wild flowers or the kebab van on the corner? That is what tranquillity is all about, and why it is so important. It is not just about preserving green spaces; it is about the way our country feels. It is about why it is good to be in our country. It is about the quality of life and the quality of our environment, and that is why it is important to preserve it.
	It is important also to bear in mind that while there is more tranquillity in the countryside, it is not exclusively a countryside issue. There are significant pockets of tranquillity in our towns and cities as well. Urban parks and suburban gardens are essential green lungs which make our urban environments better to live in than they would otherwise be. They deserve protection just as much as green belts and areas of outstanding natural beauty in the countryside as a whole.
	I am not saying, and the Bill is not saying, that everywhere must be tranquil. There are plenty of places that we want to have bright lights and loud music. If we go out on a Friday night to meet our friends, we probably want to go somewhere that has a buzz and an excitement to it. In my constituency, the seafront on Friday and Saturday nights is vibrant and exciting, and full of people enjoying themselves. We do not want to change that, but—particularly if we have had a very good Friday night—on a Saturday morning we may be in search of a place where we can find some tranquillity. It is therefore important for the country to contain both types of place: places that are lively and vibrant, and places where tranquillity exists. We need a Britain where wildlife and nightlife can co-exist.
	The crucial point is that tranquillity is fragile. The pace and the hustle and bustle of modern Britain destroy tranquillity; the two cannot coexist.
	There are some very startling and frightening statistics on the extent to which tranquillity is on the retreat throughout the country. The statistics on road transport show that that is projected to increase by between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. in the next eight years. In the last 15 years, air travel has exploded and it is expected to continue rising for many years to come. The worst statistic I saw is that in England alone we are every year concreting over an area of land the size of Leicester. Clearly, we cannot carry on doing that indefinitely. Also, light pollution rose by 24 per cent. between 1993 and 2000, and the sad fact is that in only 11 per cent. of England's land mass is it now possible to go outside at night and see a sky that is lit only by the moon and stars, as opposed to by man.
	What is to be done? The Bill is very simple—and, I hope, the more powerful because of that. It has only two clauses, the first of which says that the Government should report on and publish the results of the measurement of tranquillity, probably along the lines of the system that I have just described which has been put together by the Campaign to Protect Rural England. That will allow us to track tranquillity to see where it is strong and where it is weak and where it is advancing and where it is retreating. Having tracked and measured tranquillity effectively, the second clause is equally simple. It says that the Government should put a duty on planning authorities to protect, preserve and enhance tranquillity in every decision that they take.
	The good news is that the Government should be onside on this issue. They have been using the word "tranquillity" in approving tones since as long ago as when the rural White Paper was produced, in 2000; they have mentioned it several times since in many different sorts of official environmental documentation. I therefore hope—even expect—that the Government will be able to support the Bill either by providing it with time or by picking up on this issue and including measures to address it in some of their future legislation. I certainly hope that we will be pushing at an open door, and I encourage Members of all parties to take them at their word: they say that tranquillity is important, so let us give them the chance to act on their words.
	If there is only one reason why Members of all parties choose to support the Bill, let it be the following one. I have said that tranquillity is under threat: it is retreating throughout the country. If we do not act now, tranquillity will soon be nothing but a folk memory. All those wonderful quiet places free from human interference that everyone knows of will be gone—all Members probably have places near our homes in our constituencies where we like to go. If for no other reason, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to turn from merely uttering warm words to taking action to preserve tranquillity. If we do not act now, the things that we take for granted today will be denied to them tomorrow. Tranquillity is important, and it is in trouble. It deserves our attention and requires our help and protection. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by John Penrose, David Taylor, Mr. John Gummer, Mr. Nick Hurd, Norman Baker, Derek Wyatt, Mr. Philip Dunne, Mr. John Whittingdale, Mr. Frank Field, Kelvin Hopkins and Jeremy Wright.

Rural Tranquillity

John Penrose accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of an indicator for rural tranquillity; to provide for the protection of rural tranquillity in the planning process; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 May, and to be printed [Bill 73].

Orders of the Day

House of Lords Reform

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6 March], That this House supports the principle of a bicameral Parliament.
	 Question again proposed.

Bridget Prentice: It is something to speak following a speech on tranquillity, given that that word will probably not be used to describe this particular debate. That said, yesterday's debate was very entertaining, and since it took place my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been described as having the courage of 300 Spartans. Whether that makes the rest of us part of the 700 Thespian volunteers, I do not know.
	Yesterday's debate reminded me of the football pools: one could perm any eight from 10 in terms of the views expressed in the House. As we know, this is a debate of two halves, and it falls to me to blow the whistle to start the second half today. The House will forgive me if I express the hope that the second half does not last quite as long as the first, not least because there is another game of two halves in which I have a great interest: Celtic versus AC Milan this evening.  [Interruption.] I hope that that sedentary intervention was said with the light-heartedness with which it appeared to be said.
	Mr. Speaker, the House will be grateful to you to know that when the votes take place, the monitors will indicate exactly which motion Members are voting on. That is already a break with the past, and one which I hope will help to steer Members into the appropriate Lobby for each vote.

David Clelland: If the monitors are going to indicate which motion we are voting on, that will be very helpful to Members. However, can we be assured that, when reference is made on the monitors to "the appointed House", the word "reformed" will be included?

Bridget Prentice: The title given on the monitors will explain exactly what each motion is on. I hope that the situation will be sufficiently clear, but I am sure that there will be plenty of Members in the Chamber and elsewhere guiding their friends and colleagues into the Lobby.
	A considerable amount of work has already been done on this issue. There is the excellent report of the Joint Committee on Conventions, chaired by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Cunningham of Felling, and, of course, the substantial work done by the cross-party working group, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I hope that today's debate will be another major step in a century's-worth of steps on the road to reform. Members will be relieved to know that I will not be giving them a year-by-year account of the history of reform—[Hon. Members: "Go on!"] Well, otherwise, there will be no time for any of this evening's votes, and as I have said, I must get away in time to see Celtic defeat the mighty AC Milan. However, there are some points along the time line that I would like to highlight.
	The first such point was the Parliament Act 1911, which was a response to the crisis arising from the Lords' rejection of the 1909 Budget. That Act ensured that money Bills could receive Royal Assent without the approval of the other place, and it shortened the maximum length of a Parliament from seven to five years. Public Bills, with some exceptions, were to receive Royal Assent without the consent of the Lords if they had been passed by this House in three successive Sessions. The Parliament Act 1949 reduced that period to two Sessions, and reduced the period between the first Second Reading and the final passage of a Bill to one year. Those Acts are key pillars of the primacy of this House and they are fundamental to its relationship with the Lords.
	Then there was the development of the Salisbury-Addison convention. The 1945 general election produced a Labour Government with a massive majority of 156, but of course, at that time there was only a small number of peers—16 out of 831—who took the Labour Whip. That imbalance had to be addressed. The then Viscount Cranbourne, Leader of the Opposition in the Lords and fifth Marquis of Salisbury, and Viscount Addison, the Labour leader in the Lords, came to an agreement that we now refer to as the Salisbury-Addison convention. They agreed that, because major Government legislation had been put before the country at the general election, and the people, with knowledge of those proposals, had returned a Labour Government, the Government had a mandate to introduce their key proposals, and the Lords should not oppose them.
	The Joint Committee on Conventions has given an excellent description of the convention as it stands today and I commend its report to the House. That Salisbury-Addison convention gives effect to the primacy of this House, and it is vital to how the other place responds to manifesto legislation. Parliament would be very different without it.

Tom Levitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the primacy of one Chamber over the other is as much about perception as about legislative framework, and that it is for that reason that many of us feel that a largely or wholly elected Chamber would claim a degree of legitimacy that the present Chamber could not, which could be to the detriment of the Chamber? Does she agree that the Salisbury-Addison convention was a voluntary arrangement between both Houses, and that a completely different House at the other end of the corridor may wish to seek another sort of convention?

Bridget Prentice: I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend says; politics is very often about perception. But I should say to him, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said yesterday, that should the House decide to go for a partly or wholly elected second Chamber, whatever it decides it will also decide the rules by which that Chamber is governed, so I hope that my hon. Friend will accept, as I do, that it would be for the House to decide what those rules are likely to be.

Robert Smith: rose—

Sadiq Khan: rose—

Bridget Prentice: I shall give way just once more.

Robert Smith: The hon. Lady said that perception is extremely important. It should be remembered that there is a perception in the country that gradually over the years—especially in the last 10 years but also before then—the Executive have been seen to grab more powers to the Executive and become less accountable to Parliament as a whole, and that the reform of the House of Lords is part of the process of giving more accountability again to the Executive, which in the long run will benefit the Executive as well by keeping them more in touch.

Bridget Prentice: I can agree with the hon. Gentleman in one sense: I agree that making these reforms will make the Executive, and Parliament as a whole, more accountable. I would say to him too, however, that over the past 10 years the Executive have probably been more accountable in many ways than any previous one, so I would not accept his point on that.
	I want to move on to the third key point along the timeline—the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the Peerages Act 1963. They allowed life peers to sit in the other place; the Lords would no longer be limited to those with an hereditary title; and they even allowed women to sit there too. The 1963 Act also famously allowed hereditary peerages to be disclaimed for life or relinquished for a period of time.
	Fundamental and far-reaching reform did not come, however, until this Labour Government came to power in 1997. The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the majority of peers who sat in the other place as a right of heredity. It was an absurdity in a modern democracy and it had to go. I see from yesterday's debate that both sides of the House agree that this should be so, although I do recall the campaign literature for the Conservative party in 1997, drawing attention to the advantages of the hereditary peers.
	Our job was incomplete, however. Running through these parliamentary reforms demonstrates that which is obvious but which may also be so close to us that we miss it. Those reforms are now embedded in our culture and conventions. The Salisbury-Addison convention, the introduction of life peers and women peers and the removal of the majority of hereditary peers have all strengthened the other place, and in so doing have strengthened Parliament as a whole. It is quite clear that where reform is necessary, the Houses do not crumble but are reinforced.
	This history demonstrates something else, loud and clear. Reform of the second Chamber has been on the agenda for too long. We must now today have the courage of our convictions, as our predecessors did. We must today complete that to which our manifestos commit us. It is time to complete the job that the Government started in 1999. I therefore urge Members today to remember that, and not to allow the fine detail of reform, which there will be ample time to debate later—

John Bercow: The hon. Lady mentioned convictions and I am hugely interested in hers. My recollection is that she was not in support of election last time. If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected, but I do not think that she supported the election options last time. Will she, like the sinner that repenteth, her right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, support elected options this time?

Bridget Prentice: I am perfectly happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that last time I voted for abolition and for a fully appointed second House. I shall do the same this time. However I will, in order that we do complete reform of the House of Lords, vote for a 50 per cent. elected House should we get to that stage. But I urge Members today not to allow the fine detail of reform—which we shall be able to debate in due course—to get in the way of the important decision on the composition of the other place. That is why I shall be voting in the way that I shall tonight.
	I am now going to blow the whistle, step back from play and let the second half commence.

Oliver Letwin: Yesterday we had a very long and very interesting debate. Some of the issues that were not clearly in focus at the start of it actually emerged during the debate, which was an unusual process in the House. I want to dwell on what I think we learned from yesterday's debate, and address some of the points that hon. Members made.
	Interestingly, yesterday's debate was not a debate about a principle; there was a clash between two principles. Many Members, mainly on the Labour Benches, although there were one or two on my own side, argued that we should have an elected or largely elected House of Lords on the grounds of the principle of democratic legitimacy. They argued that it was necessary for a group of people who had an influence on law making to be democratically elected. Interestingly—I was here for the great bulk of what happened yesterday and I read the report of the remainder—no voice was raised against that principle. On reflection, that is not terribly surprising; anyone in the House who objected to the principle that law should generally be made by those who have been elected would find themselves in an odd position, as they are here by virtue of having been democratically elected themselves. So that principle was accepted on both sides.
	The other clash centred on the principle advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and some of my other hon. Friends. In a very eloquent speech, my hon. Friend, who is not in his place now but was present for yesterday's debate, argued persuasively that we should not worry about whether an item conforms to a general democratic principle, but should worry about a different question—whether our constitution works and whether it is calculated to deliver results that are in the interests of our people. The clash between those two principles—the principle of democracy and the principle of what works—formed the basis of much of yesterday's debate.
	Today, I want to take on the argument made by those who supported the second principle, and who also argued that an elected or largely elected House of Lords would not work, because it seems to me that, given the structure of yesterday's debate, if we could assure ourselves that an elected or largely elected House of Lords would work, we would then have what we have all been seeking all this time: consensus. One set of people think that everything should be democratic; another set of people think that everything should work. If it was the case that this elected House of Lords was both democratic and workable, we would all agree on having an elected or largely elected House of Lords.

Edward Leigh: Did my right hon. Friend also notice the argument that I and other hon. Members made yesterday, and with which I am sure he would agree—that if we are to have an elected House, it is essential that the elected Members of the other place are not clones of MPs? Does he see any merit, therefore, in ensuring that they are genuinely concerned with scrutiny of the Executive rather than their own ambitions by stipulating that they may not become Ministers of the Crown if they are elected to the other place?

Oliver Letwin: Yes and yes is my answer to that. I shall address that point in a moment, as my hon. Friend will hear. In his own eloquent performance yesterday, in which he successively advanced an argument and then advanced a series of sub-arguments in case he lost the first and then the second and the third, he brought out well a point with which I agree: we will have to take steps to try to make the Members of the upper House as independent as possible. I agree with my hon. Friend that one of those steps could be to prevent them from serving as Ministers.
	Let me return to the question whether a largely elected House of Lords could work. There were two sides to that argument yesterday. One side argued that if the upper Chamber were largely or wholly elected there would be a productive tension between it and our House, or between it and the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) both made speeches to that effect. On the other side of the argument were those who argued that a largely or wholly elected House of Lords would create deadlock. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who is not in his place today, made a powerful and eloquent case for the proposition that it would engender deadlock —[ Interruption. ] I am aware that some of my hon. Friends agree with that proposition. Those two positions are at the centre of the debate.
	On the question whether an elected House would create a productive tension, some of my hon. Friends and some Labour Members suggested that there was no problem to be solved in the first place. They argued that we did not need to worry about whether the tension would be creative or lead to deadlock because we did not have a problem at the moment. Therefore, they argued, there was no need for change. I do not believe that that argument has much weight. One of the few issues in this whole vexed area on which we can almost all agree is that the Executive have too much power. That is not a reflection on the present Government, or on previous or future Governments, because the simple fact is that we live under a Government who are dominated by the Prime Minister of the day because of his powers of patronage. By definition—or by hypothesis in our system, because of our fused arrangements—the Government have a majority in the House of Commons and are, broadly speaking, able to do what they like with insufficient check between elections. That is a problem not only for the people of this country but for the Government of the day who would benefit from being more effectively checked. That is common ground between the occupants of the Front Benches, but it is also a widely shared view in the country and in the House.

Nicholas Winterton: What are you going to do about it?

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is telepathically interpreting the stages of my speech. Some of my hon. Friends and some Labour Members argued that what we needed to do was mainly—some argued wholly—to reform the House of Commons. I have considerable sympathy with that—

Nicholas Winterton: Quite right!

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is doing so well with his telepathy that I may shortly withdraw and allow him to make this speech instead. Unfortunately, he and I will disagree about the conclusion.
	My colleagues in the shadow Cabinet and I—and, I suspect, Ministers—profoundly agree that there is a need and scope for reform of the House of Commons. I hope that the Leader of the House, who takes these matters seriously, may be one of those Leaders of the House who takes Commons reform seriously. That would be a wonderful step forward. Will it be enough? I doubt it. In the nature of a fused constitution, the Government have a majority in the House and are therefore unlikely ever to accede to the House being used as a mechanism to check them with sufficient challenge and ferocity. It is possible, but unlikely. It is much more likely that the other place, which has a longer record of independence and a greater distance from the Executive—if its Members were not allowed to be Ministers and had long terms of office, it would be yet more independent—would be able to exercise that check. I suspect that most people, if they examine their consciences and deprive themselves of the glories of rhetorical debate, would agree with that proposition.

Mike Hall: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's speech closely. The primary subject of yesterday's debate was whether this House had primacy over the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that we need to give the Lords more power to challenge what happens in this House, but that ignores the point about primacy.

Oliver Letwin: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am just coming to the point about primacy. My argument so far is that we need to have a House of Lords that has more confidence to challenge the Government of the day. I will explain why primacy is not the issue, although it was raised in the debate yesterday.
	The next question is whether being largely elected would give the House of Lords greater confidence to challenge the Government of the day. I think that that proposition is unchallengeable. It is clear that if it were largely elected—80 per cent., to choose a figure—it would feel much more confidence in challenging the Government. I do not say that it would be perfect or that it would always challenge the Government, but it would have more confidence.

Philip Davies: I am not sure that I share my right hon. Friend's confidence that an elected second Chamber would do that. The Leader of the House has indicated that the elections would take place on a proportional representation list system, but the list would be packed with party stooges who would just do the parties' bidding. The only difference would be that we would lose the expertise and experience in the House of Lords that has been built up, for no positive benefit.

Oliver Letwin: As a matter of the logic of the argument, it is important that my hon. Friend should recognise that we are dealing now with composition and will deal later with the rules governing election. However, as a matter of fact, I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that one has to take steps to make the elected or largely elected members of the upper House independent. One step might be not to allow them to be Ministers. Another might be for them to serve long terms and a third should be for them not to be elected on a closed list system of the type that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) mentions. There are other possible steps, but it must be possible to devise rules that will make it more rather than less likely that those Members will be independent minded. It must also be the case that if they have a mandate, they will feel more empowered to challenge the Government.
	I come now to the salient point made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall). The answer of most of those who spoke in yesterday's debate, who rejected the proposition despite everything that I have just said, was that the problem did not reside in the House of Lords not having a function, or in it not attaining more oomph and vigour in pursuing the function of challenging the Government as a result of election, but in the fact that the system would work too well. The House of Lords would somehow—in the phrase used yesterday, which the hon. Gentleman repeated—challenge the primacy of this House.
	I invite right hon. and hon. Members to reflect on how we look to the outside world. That is a difficult thing to do, because it is difficult to look at oneself. Who on earth in the United Kingdom cares about the primacy of the House of Commons? If I went out in the streets with a big banner that said "I'm in favour of the primacy of the House of Commons." I would not attract large groups of people to follow behind me—[ Interruption.] Yes, there are some hon. Members who are concerned about that, but my point is that the 60 million people out there could not care less about the primacy of anything, especially the House of Commons. Indeed, if one asked them about the primacy of the House of Commons, they would probably think that one meant whether it should be filled with primates—a very different subject.
	The primacy of the House of Commons is, in constitutional terms, neither here nor there. What matters is whether the Government can govern, and that is what hon. Members were trying to get at yesterday. That does matter to hon. Members, but more importantly it matters to 60 million people in this country. It matters that when the Government of the day have been elected in a general election they are able to govern and do their business. Forget the primacy of this House and concentrate on the ability of the Government to govern.
	The Leader of the House was persuasive and eloquent on this point. The question is whether the Government, if they are in possession of a majority in this House—which they must have in order to form the Government in the first place—and if this House has control of Supply, which it undoubtedly does by convention and deep constitutional theory, and if the House and Government are possessed of the Parliament Acts, as they will be, face any realistic prospect of not being able to get their business through, spend their money and follow their policies. Manifestly, the answer would be no. There is no such prospect and, interestingly, those who opposed large degrees of election did not argue that there was. It is significant that, as part of his conversion, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) withdrew from that position. He considered that things would change in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years, and that somehow the Government of the day would be deprived of the vital powers conferred by the Parliament Acts, the right of Supply and so on.
	I do not know what will happen in 100 years. None of us can. However, I do know that, when a new system with a largely elected House of Lords is introduced, the House of Commons will retain the powers needed to ensure that the Government of the day can govern.

Alan Beith: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis but, even if no party has a majority in the other Chamber, certain issues could arise about which a broad section of opinion there might believe that the Government must be forced to think again, repeatedly, before taking a drastic step. If the progress of Government business were to be impeded in that way, would not most of the general public believe that that was much more important than any concept of the primacy of the House of Commons?

Oliver Letwin: I very much agree. If we have a House of Lords that is largely elected, under any of the arrangements that we have discussed, it will feel more empowered to challenge. As a result, the Government of the day will be delayed more often. They will always get their way in the end, but will have to take account of the great heat that will be generated in public as a result of the delay. That will be a more effective check between elections on the overweening use of power by the Government of the day. That is the argument that those of us who believe that there should be a largely elected second Chamber want to advance.

Gerald Howarth: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it will not be 100 years before those elected to the other place start to claim an authority that they do not have at the moment? They will say, "We are elected, and we are as legitimate as the people down the Corridor." They will demand a greater say, including over matters such as the Budget.

Oliver Letwin: I think that my hon. Friend ignores the fact of what happens at a general election. The theory is that we are sent here as independent representatives of our seats, with no party affiliation, but the fact is that the public elect a Government. They select a person to be Prime Minister, they select the colleagues of that person to be the Government, and they select the party that those people represent to govern them. As long as that is what happens at general elections, I do not believe that the fear that the other place might seek to become the Government of the day is more than fanciful.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Oliver Letwin: I shall answer one more question, and then sit down.

John Baron: I am following my right hon. Friend's argument closely. Does he accept that equating elections with legitimacy means that it is possible that a majority of the elected representatives to Parliament may be in disagreement with the Government? Would not that call the legitimacy of that Government into question?

Oliver Letwin: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised what I think is the centrepiece of this debate. First, if people know that they are electing a Government when they vote at a general election, it is very unlikely that another set of people will be able to persuade them that it is they who have been elected. The dynamic of media and public opinion will not allow that to happen.
	Secondly, it is enormously important to recognise that when a group of people are elected on the basis that they will not form the Government—and, moreover, elected in ways that reinforce the assumption that they will not do so—it would take a heroic effort of self-importance on their part to persuade themselves nevertheless that they did, somehow, constitute that Government. That heroic self-importance would be greater than anything that even we in this House can manage and, God knows, we can do very well in that regard.
	I accept that human beings can do strange things, but it is unlikely that the sober-minded people elected to the House of Lords would behave in that way.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Oliver Letwin: I am sorry, but I am going to sit down now; otherwise I shall be accused of hogging the Dispatch Box.

Gerald Kaufman: I am most grateful to be called to speak, but I have to admit that I do not know what comes over Labour Foreign Secretaries when they are made Leader of the House of Commons. Like Robin Cook, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was a brilliant Foreign Secretary—by that I mean that I agreed with everything that he did—but, also like Robin Cook, he has come over all funny since he has been Leader of the House. The proposals that he has put before us, the speech that he made yesterday and the letters that he has sent out only confirm my diagnosis.
	Let us be clear: there can be only three logical positions in respect of whether we should have a bicameral or unicameral legislature. The first is that the second Chamber should be abolished. The second is that it should be 100 per cent. elected, and the third that it should be 100 per cent. appointed. All the rest, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, are gibberish.

Andrew Tyrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Kaufman: No, as I want to advance my argument a little.
	What is special about 50 per cent., 60 per cent., or 80 per cent.? What is the logic? The Government are trying to involve us in a kind of constitutional sudoku, in which we fill in the blank spaces. Other metaphors for what they are getting us into might be spread betting, or the premium phone-ins on ITV that my good friend Michael Grade is bringing to an end.
	This is an utterly irresponsible way to create a new House of Parliament from scratch. After 800 years of the other Chamber's evolution, the Government basically want to abolish it and to start anew. However, if that is what they intend, they must proceed only on the basis of total logic.
	The Leader of the House is my friend as well as my right hon. Friend, but I have to tell him that what he is proposing to vote for this evening is constitutionally disreputable. What is more, the dark warnings that he has given the House of Lords of the terrible fate that awaits it if it obstructs what the House of Commons votes for this evening—assuming that we vote as he wants us to—are useless if there is an elected element there.
	The House of Lords has obstructed the House of Commons even when nobody there has been elected. Under the proposals, Members of the other place may secure an elected mandate on the 20 per cent. of the electorate likely to turn out if their polls are held at the same time as European elections. Even so, they will say, "We've been voted for. You, friends, get lost!"

Andrew Tyrie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Kaufman: In a moment. Elected Members of the other place will say, "We've got as much right to do what we're doing at out our end of the Corridor as you have at yours." The same argument applies to the answer to the question put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) about whether elected Members of the House of Lords would have the same freedom as hon. Members to make representations on behalf of their constituents. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House replied:
	"Members of the House of Lords are not there to represent constituencies. Paragraphs 6.8 to 6.15 of the White Paper...explains that one of the key principles that should underpin a reformed House is the complimentary"—
	by the way, Jack, you don't know how to spell complementary—
	"nature of the House of Lords. The House of Lords should not duplicate the functions of the House of Commons.—[ Official Report, 1 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1468-9W.]
	Dream on, Jack. Anybody—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member for a long time, and used to tutor me in how to conduct myself in the Chamber. Now the apprentice is telling him.

Gerald Kaufman: As always, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. Dream on my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
	If Members of the House of Lords are elected—probably by proportional representation—they will take on our cases. If they win, they will say that they were successful because we could not win the case. If they lose, and there is a Labour Government, as I hope that there will be, they will blame the Government. They will have it every single way there is.

Andrew Tyrie: At the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech he suggested that there were only three possibilities—

Tom Levitt: Three possibilities in logic.

Andrew Tyrie: Indeed, so why, when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Wakeham Committee, did he sign up to a fourth—a mixed House by proportional representation?

Gerald Kaufman: I did not— [ Interruption. ] I specifically did not. If the hon. Gentleman looks at that part of the report he will see, first, that it was not a recommendation but an option and, secondly, that the section to which he refers was supported by a majority of the royal commission. I had that provision included because I told the secretary of the royal commission that I would not sign the report if it recommended election to the other place, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make that absolutely clear.

Mark Fisher: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Kaufman: Of course.

Mark Fisher: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is also my friend, for giving way.
	It is curious that my right hon. Friend says that simply because people in the other House might be elected it would give them the confidence to interfere in constituency matters. Does he have much trouble with his local Member of the European Parliament taking up constituency casework? I do not think that any of us experience such trouble; there may be occasional events, but they are very occasional. MEPs have a different remit.

Gerald Kaufman: As my hon. Friend knows, there are several local MEPs, because of the absurd way in which the European Parliament is elected. One of them, my very good friend, Arlene McCarthy, who is Labour, of course supports everything I do. Others, from different political parties, do not have the same credentials.
	I have to tell my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that there is no future whatever for his proposals, regardless of what happens this evening. Whatever happens here this evening, the other place will make its decisions and, in addition, we have to take account of the fact that later this year we shall have a new Prime Minister who will not be barmy enough to allow the only full Session of this Parliament before he calls a general election—which Labour will win—to be bogged down with this ludicrous nonsense. Whether it is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor or somebody else, he or she will want to spend the Session presenting excellent, sensible, constructive Labour policies to help us win the election; he will not want it bogged down by the same absurdity that bogged down the Labour Government in 1966—with Michael Foot and Enoch Powell—and the same absurdity that Robin Cook, brilliant as he was, proposed to the House of Commons.
	Whatever we decide this evening has no future in this Parliament. However, I want to make it absolutely clear to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that if—as I think quite possible—there is a vote for some elected element, the Government had better not use that vote to put in our Labour party manifesto a commitment that we will carry out the decision on a three-line Whip in the next Parliament. In 37 years I have never voted against the Labour Whip, but if the Government try that on— [ Interruption. ] I have been unanimously reselected in my constituency and if the Government try that on, I shall be there watching—subject to the wishes of the electorate in Gorton, bless them. I tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn—I am abiding by the Speaker's rulings and strictures—that I am very fond of him but I hope that under the new Prime Minister he will move on to a post where he can exercise his talents in a more constructive and sensible way.

David Heath: It was instructive to hear the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) constructing the obituary of parliamentary democracy: whatever this House decides, a new Executive will ignore it. That was the tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Irrespective of the majorities that may be secured in this House, a new Prime Minister will ignore it. That is the argument in a nutshell.
	There is a slight sense of "after the Lord Mayor's show" about today's proceedings, because we had such an excellent debate yesterday. However, I want to record my appreciation to the Leader of the House for his work on the cross-party group. It was an interesting group on which to serve; we did not always agree, but we found much common ground. The White Paper that resulted from our deliberations was not in every detail what we, the Conservatives or even the Government would have liked, but it gives us a basis on which to discuss the matter.
	I proffer apologies to the House from the Liberal Democrats for the fact that we failed miserably to finish the job properly in 1911. The preamble to the Parliament Act states:
	"And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot immediately be brought into operation."
	The expediency of 1911 has been a matter of much regret since. Here we are, discussing the matter yet again nearly 100 years later.
	I agree with all those who say that we should be talking about reform not just of the House of Lords but of Parliament. We should also be talking about democratic renewal because there is a great need to revitalise our democratic institutions at all levels. This reform is simply a component part of that process.

Philip Davies: I have been tussling with a conundrum that the hon. Gentleman may be able to solve. Why are he and his party so determined that there must be elections to the House of Lords, which has no powers at all, bar those of revising and advising this place, yet they are more than happy to give more and more powers to the European Union and thus to an unelected European Commission that controls 80 per cent. of UK laws? He and his party have nothing to say about that.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to say that we have nothing to say about democratic renewal in the European Union, but that is not the matter before us today.
	May I deal with the various points raised in the debate yesterday and today? First, there is the perfectly respectable argument that is put forward by those who favour a unicameral system. Those who believe that we should not have a second Chamber have a degree of logic on their side. It is not a position that I particularly agree with, but at least I can see that there is an internal logic to their argument. Their difficulty lies in establishing how the House of Commons would properly function as a Chamber instigating legislation and revising it in one move. That is done in some legislatures, but the majority of larger countries—countries with more complex legislation and economies—find that there is the need for a revising Chamber that can take some of the work load, although I agree with one of my colleagues, who said yesterday that the work load argument cannot be carried to a conclusion, because we can organise our work more effectively than we do at the moment. At least those who believe in abolition have a clear view—a view that I respect, but do not support.
	I have a great deal more difficulty with some of the other arguments that have been adduced. First, it is argued, on the grounds of utility, that the House of Lords does an excellent job and, that being so, that it is unnecessary to make any reform. I am certainly one of the first to say that there should be respect between the two Chambers. I respect enormously the work done by many Members of the House of Lords, as presently constituted in its capacity as a revising Chamber. They do us many favours in looking at legislation that we inadequately scrutinise and often asking this House to think again.
	I am not sure, however, that that respect necessarily extends to every current Member of the House of Lords. Many of them appear rarely, if at all. Some are suspected of owing their place more to their cheque book than to their intrinsic merits. Some, frankly, are the dead wood of this House who have been moved to the other place to make way for perhaps more enterprising replacements. Some have been convicted of criminal offences, but retain their seats in our legislature. There is a limit to the arguments about respect.
	Secondly, there is the argument about the effectiveness of the other Chamber. Again, having dealt over recent years with difficult Home Office and Department for Constitutional Affairs legislation, I have reason to be grateful for the good sense of those in the Lords who have been prepared to defy the Government and say, "Think again." But I am also conscious of the fact that, at the end of the day, they have always had to give in to this House, without this House properly considering the arguments that have been put. That is a key issue. We have an extraordinary system at the moment—at the end of the Session, when we have the ping-pong—whereby we have a so-called message from the Lords, which we dispose of in an hour's debate, with most Back Benchers not being able to contribute, scant real debate on the issues and no opportunity for conciliation. That does not demonstrate respect between the two Houses and it does not allow for this House and the other place to do their work effectively.

Alan Beith: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has ever sat on a Reasons Committee for one of its one or two-minute meetings, at which it sets out the reasons for the Commons disagreeing with the Lords. If he had, he would realise that the extraordinary pointlessness of that exercise demonstrates the cavalier way in which we sometimes treat this process.

David Heath: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have sat on many Reasons Committees. I clearly remember one occasion when it was decided that, "the reason that this House disagrees with the House of Lords is because we do not agree with it." That was the only argument that could be produced in the little room behind the Speaker's Chair. We do not agree, so we send the legislation back and eventually we win the day in this House because of the primacy of the Commons. That is not the way to get good legislation and good legislation is what we should be about.
	The third argument relates to the unique expertise in another place. Again, there are some wonderful experts in that place, but they are in well-defined areas. We have wonderful lawyers, excellent generals, and a few—not many, and certainly not many in the scientific disciplines—academics, but there are no expert plumbers, carpenters or waste disposal operatives. The other place has a limited range of expertise. A Conservative Member argued yesterday that we should have a House derived from specific guilds, which would provide that expertise. That might be a Platonic ideal, but it is not one that should commend itself to a democratic 21st century country such as the United Kingdom.

Mike Hall: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the argument about what happens at the end of the Session, when we have ping-pong, and about the negotiations that take place between the two Houses to get the legislation on to the statute book? We are not going to change that system today; what we are going to change is how the House of Lords is comprised. What has he got to say about that?

David Heath: What I have to say about that is that not all the reforms that I want to see encompassed are within the White Paper or included among the motions on the Order Paper today, but I hope that we can discuss the reform of Parliament in the context of this debate.

Oliver Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a fuller answer to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall)? If the House of Lords is largely elected, the relationship between the two Houses will have to be one of greater respect, because it will be more often invoked and it will be necessary for us to negotiate more.

David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was going to come on to that argument in relation to the legitimacy of the other House.
	May I dispose of one more argument? There is a broad argument for the status quo. It is heard a lot in the other place from some people who have scrambled up the ladder of privilege to be Members of the House of Lords and who survey the world from the top of that ladder and think that it must be an exceedingly good system that put them there. It is a ladder of privilege. I am not talking about privilege in the normal sense. It is a privilege to serve in our Parliament—in this House and in another place. But that needs to be based on legitimacy. I just wonder whether some right hon. and hon. Members in this House may have their feet somewhere up that ladder of privilege and may be reluctant to let go of the higher rungs.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. Perhaps the House of Lords would have more legitimacy if its Members turned up and did anything. According to TheyWorkForYou.com, the average number of appearances in the last year for most peers is five. Does he agree that that is not good enough?

David Heath: I certainly agree that there are a large number of people who are created peers of the realm, with a place in the House of Lords, who do not use that place effectively. If people take the privileges associated with the title, they should also accept the duties of the job.

John Bercow: The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is absolutely right on that point. Surely what we need is a much more concerted and professional focus. Is it not emblematic of the problem of amateurishness and part-time commitment in the other House that 25 per cent. of Members of the Second Chamber ask 87 per cent. of the questions and make 76 per cent. of the speeches and interventions? Vast numbers contribute scarcely at all. That is the reality.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I must now make progress because of the limited time.
	The issue is not utility, but legitimacy, which is why I want a legitimate second House. I am astonished by some people's argument that they want a House that is illegitimate—something that cannot be defended—as part of our constitutional settlement. It is extraordinary for people to identify the illegitimacy, yet to say that nothing should be done about that because they are pleased to have an illegitimate House making the laws on behalf of this country.

Nicholas Winterton: It does not make the laws.

David Heath: Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, even under this Government it is still Parliament that passes Acts, and there are two Houses in our Parliament.
	I do not accept that there is a threat to the primacy of this House, about which there has been a lot of debate. I wish that the House would take its primacy more seriously, especially in the area of Supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) said yesterday that we should be doing an awful lot more to scrutinise the Supply functions of the House.

Mark Harper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I am sorry, but I cannot at the moment.
	We need to recognise that our primacy comes primarily from our ability to make or break a Government. That will be the case irrespective of reform of the other place.
	There are those who argue that we must debate function before we can debate form. That circular argument is a delaying tactic that is designed purely to obfuscate, rather than to elucidate. We know the present functions of the Lords. Yes, we would like to see them evolve, but we know what they are and how they could be best suited to the form that we are suggesting.
	There are those who argue that deadlock will inevitably emerge from reform. Why? We are not the only country in the world that has ever contemplated having two elected Houses of Parliament. Are all countries with an elected upper Chamber hamstrung and in deadlock? Of course they are not. I reject that argument.

Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I do not have time.
	The slippery-slope argument is precisely the argument that has been used over the years by every reactionary voice against any democratic improvement in this country. We heard about the slippery slope of giving men who were not peers of the realm the vote, for heaven's sake, and of giving people who were not householders the vote. People said, "Giving women the vote—where will it all end?" The situation has always been the same: the voices of reaction, from wherever they appear in the Chamber, have always sung the same tune.
	It is quite wrong that hon. Members should contemplate for one moment a wholly appointed House that would have no legitimacy and would be a House of political patronage. That is not what the people of this country want or what this House wants, as it has demonstrated previously. I am confident that we will reject that option, but if we do so, we must support amendment (c) to the motion on hereditary places. It would be quite perverse for us to reject an appointed House, but to end up with a fully appointed House simply through the removal of the hereditaries. I want them removed—let there be no doubt about that—because there is no case for a hereditary principle in a modern Parliament, but if the hereditaries were removed without any further democratic reform, we would end up with a fully appointed House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Heath: I am sorry, but I am not going to take any more interventions because the debate is time limited. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would want me to conclude soon.
	We have a clear manifesto commitment to a predominantly elected House, which I interpret as one in which at least 80 per cent. of Members are elected.

Fiona Mactaggart: Look in the dictionary.

David Heath: I do not need to look in the dictionary to understand the word "predominantly". It does not mean half and half.

Jack Straw: The word "predominantly" does not mean half and half, but will the hon. Gentleman explain how, according to the Liberal Democrat lexicon, it means wholly elected, but not 60 per cent. elected?

David Heath: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that appointing four out of every 10 peers by a political process will result in a predominantly elected House, I fundamentally disagree with him. In a debate in which we are being asked to express our preference, I will not vote for an option that would result in a House that would be unsupportable and unsustainable.

Jack Straw: rose—

David Heath: This is taking time.

Jack Straw: It is a shame, that.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman's argument is that he is trying to be true to his manifesto. However, the manifesto said nothing about a wholly elected second Chamber, so I assume that that was not supported by the Liberal Democrats. Why are the Liberal Democrats thus saying that they will vote for a wholly elected second Chamber, which is palpably not consistent with their manifesto, yet that they will not vote for a 60 per cent. elected second Chamber, which, it is highly arguable, would be consistent with what their manifesto said?

David Heath: Perhaps it is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to conceive of the idea that my hon. Friends might have looked at the manifesto and the proposals before us and decided that 60:40 would not be something that they would wish to support. Those who want that option as an expedient because they think that it might scrape its way through the House are basing their position on the wholly optimistic view that that option would inevitably result in a higher proportion of elected Members. I take the totally pessimistic view that if such an option were passed by the House, some in Government circles would be happy to grab that proposal and say that it was the end of the story. We would thus end up with a House that was almost 50 per cent. composed of Tony's cronies, and I will not vote for that.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we were to go for 80:20, we could squeeze out the patronage? Surely that is important in the current climate.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I only hope that he can carry a majority of his hon. Friends with him. I have the quaint idea that manifestos should mean something to Back Benchers; even they should feel a sense of shame when they do not support the view expressed in them.
	Three parties are committed to the democratic reform of the House of Lords. We will find out later whether that translates into a majority in the House. I worry about the siren voices who say that they want democratic reform of the House of Lords, yet want the new Members of the House of Lords to look as much as possible like Members of the House of Commons, with constituencies near to the size of those of hon. Members, and want those Members to be elected by the same system used for elections to the House of Commons. We should resist those siren voices because we know that that would be unacceptable to the House.
	The House should take a clear view. It would be a great shame if we were unable to do so. If we are unable to reach a clear conclusion, it will be because of the voting system that will be used. It is instructive that the people who were vociferously against the preferential voting system proposed by the Leader of the House are exactly the same people who are expressing the view that they want no change—over their dead bodies will they see change in the House of Lords. I regret that. They took a potentially dishonest view. However, even within the constraints of a very poor voting system, the House can take a view, and that view should be for reform.

Frank Dobson: If the Commons votes for electing some or all Members of the House of Lords, we are likely to be heading for a constitutional shambles with two sets of elected representatives in perpetual conflict. I want Lords reform—I go further: I want a lot more parliamentary reform—but we will not get that if we vote for such an option. We would be changing the membership of the Lords without clarifying and codifying its functions. As a result, when the Prime Minister moves out of Downing street to concentrate on his memoirs and lectures, his successor would be left with a parliamentary mess on top of all the other problems of government.
	A House of Lords that was wholly, or even partly, elected would change the whole basis of our parliamentary system. At present, the House of Commons always gets its way, providing it can tolerate delay. However, most of the constraints on the Lords are voluntary conventions that peers have had to accept because they have no democratic legitimacy. People elected to the House of Lords would have democratic legitimacy. Indeed, if the new Lords are elected by any system other than first past the post, supporters of proportional representation will tell us that the House of Lords has more legitimacy than the House of Commons. The dynamics of the Lords, and of the relationship between the Houses, will change. No self-respecting elected peer will be bound by conventions arrived at before they took their seats. That is why I believe that what is proposed is likely to lead at worst to a major constitutional crisis, and at best to debilitating and protracted friction between the two Houses, which will add further delay to the workings of Government. Instead of bringing about much-needed improvements to Parliament's process of legislation and scrutiny of the Executive, it would make matters worse.
	Before we decide how the House of Lords should be made up, we need to decide what job we want it to do, and what limits there will be to its powers. Until that is decided, we cannot sensibly say how its Members should be chosen. It would be like being asked to pick a team before we knew whether it would play rugby league, with its orderly play the ball rules, or rugby union, with its disorderly rucks and mauls—or, for that matter, before we knew which of any pair of virtually irreconcilable games was being played. If we want to retain the ultimate supremacy of the Commons over the Lords, we will have to thrash out each Chamber's powers and responsibilities and enshrine them in statute law; conventions will not do.
	The usual arguments put forward for the House of Lords refer to its three distinct functions. The first function is to act as a revising Chamber that amends parliamentary Bills, yet the vast majority of the amendments agreed to in the Lords are proposed by the Government. It is really more of a Tipp-Ex Chamber, correcting things that the Government got wrong or forgot in the Commons. The House of Lords makes up for the Government's failure to produce well thought out and well drafted Bills, and for the inadequacy of Commons procedures for scrutinising Bills. The next argument is that the House of Lords is there, in sporting parlance, to mark the Commons—for example, to prevent a Government from using their Commons majority to ride roughshod over basic human rights. However, as Winston Churchill pointed out as long ago as 1910, there can be no democratic justification for giving hereditary peers the right to thwart the will of the elected House of Commons. The same principle must apply to appointed peers.

Chris Bryant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Frank Dobson: No, I shall not. I want to get on, and other people want to speak. I understand that my hon. Friend spoke yesterday.
	The converse of the proposition that non-elected peers have no right to interfere with the Commons is the proposition that elected peers would claim that right. The remaining argument is that some peers bring to debates an expertise that is not generally available in the Commons. There is some truth in that. For example, no Commons Members have expertise and distinction to compare with that of, say, a former president of the Royal College of Physicians or a fellow of the Royal Society. Such expertise would clearly be eliminated from a wholly elected House of Lords, and much diminished in a partly elected one.
	Before we decide on the membership of the Lords, we need to sort out its powers and duties, but a much bigger job is needed if we are to turn back the rising tide of public dissatisfaction with our democratic institutions—with Parliament in general, and with the House of Commons in particular. We must strengthen Parliament's relationship with the Government. We need to augment and strengthen the law making powers and procedures of the House of Commons. We frequently produce faulty laws that cannot possibly be understood by the lay people who are expected to implement them. Just as importantly, many Acts of Parliament do not, in practice, have the effects intended by the Government of the day, and messing about with the membership of the Lords will not change that.
	Very few people have ever complained to me about what the House of Lords is doing wrong. They complain about the failure of the House of Commons to do its job properly. We are failing to take on the real issues of how we improve our own procedures, and how we could do a better job for the people of the country. We are diverting our efforts into messing about with the House of Lords. Ultimately, the House of Lords will need to be changed, but we need to sort out what we are doing first. We must do that, as a proper response to growing concerns about the effectiveness of our system of government. We are at the heart of that system, which needs sorting out, as our current set-up is not satisfactory. The people of the country deserve better, especially at a time when all the main parties say that they are open to fresh ideas. The public want our country to be better governed, and they are right. Making any of the changes that are proposed today will have precious little impact on that, and it will not be a worthwhile exercise.

Julian Lewis: I begin my short contribution with a confession: as a legislator—but not, I hope, as a parliamentarian—I have been an abysmal failure since I entered Parliament in 1997. [Hon. Members: "No!"] I appreciate the noises of protest, but it is true. Not one piece of legislation has been changed as a result of my presence in this House for nearly 10 years. I suspect that that would have been the case, even if I had been fortunate enough to sit on the Government Benches—as a Back Bencher, at any rate—but perhaps that is not the case.
	It was not always thus. Back in the 1980s, I had the privilege of acting as specialist adviser to a small group of peers, one of whom was Baroness Cox. Sadly, the other four are no longer with us.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is a jinx.

Julian Lewis: I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman finds that amusing. I think that when distinguished Members of the other House pass away, we ought to show some respect. The other four with whom I worked were the late Lord Beloff, the late Lord Kimberley, the late Lord Orr-Ewing and, in the latter part of the late 1980s, the late Lord Wyatt of Weeford. As I say, it was an immense privilege to know and work with those gentlemen and that lady, who were of various parties. I worked with them to consider legislation that was being considered in the Commons in a party political way, but that could benefit from amendment on a cross-party basis in the other House.
	As a result of that work, the Trade Union Act 1984 was amended after a revolt in the House of Lords. The Lords introduced registers for properly secure postal ballots for trade union elections. Postal ballots for trade union elections were made law in the Employment Act 1988. The Education Act 1986 was amended, against the wishes of the Government, to prevent political indoctrination in the classroom. The revolt in the House of Lords was so strong, and the arguments so compelling, that when the Bill came back before the House of Commons, the House of Commons and the Government listened and the law was changed. Similarly, in the Local Government Act 1988, measures were introduced to prevent indoctrination and propaganda about the rates. Those measures still hold good today, and they have been good enough to be carried forward in subsequent legislation. In the Broadcasting Act 1990, detailed provisions were included to ensure impartiality on television. Although the provisions are not always observed, they at least set a benchmark and set out what should happen when controversial, politically contentious issues are aired in the mass media.
	As a result of the Lords' ability to combine expertise and cross-party commitment to a cause when considering a Bill, it was possible to amend legislation. I have to ask myself whether that job of revision, improvement and refinement would be in any way improved if we had a wholly or partly elected upper House. I answer my own question with a resounding no. Yesterday, I experienced another failure. Despite trying on 11 separate occasions to persuade the Leader of the House to give way to me, I was not successful. That is rare, as he is usually extremely courteous.

Jack Straw: rose—

Julian Lewis: I am about to be courteous to him.

Jack Straw: If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask his question now that the positions are reversed, as it were, he is welcome to do so. May I point out that I accepted 24 interventions, so my speech, which was scheduled to last less than 20 minutes, ended up as a 40-minute speech?

Julian Lewis: I am delighted that the Leader of the House has responded as I calculated that he would, and I shall proceed to ask him what I was trying to ask him yesterday. On reflection, does he wish to give me a slightly different answer from the one that he gave to the question that I asked in the meeting of peers and Members of Parliament that he kindly attended on 30 January? I asked how precisely would the function of the House of Lords be improved as a result of the incorporation of an elected element. As I recall, he said that in the 21st century, it was no longer legitimate to have a purely appointed House. If I missed something, I will happily give way so that he can clarify that response.

Jack Straw: As I spelt out yesterday—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was listening—a fundamental argument in favour of change is the issue of legitimacy. People can make up their minds, but I do not think that it is acceptable, this time, to have a wholly appointed Chamber. That is my opinion. I believe, too—I spelt it out yesterday—that as the second Chamber becomes more legitimate so its scrutiny of Government will increase. I do not fear that, because it is perfectly possible to accommodate it without challenging the primacy of the Commons and its ability to sustain a Government.

Julian Lewis: That is a classic case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said in his excellent speech yesterday, of a solution looking for a problem. There is a determination in different parts of the House, including among Ministers, to introduce an elected House of Lords because they think that is right. I am indebted to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—we should all be grateful to him—for stating that the issue is not utility but legitimacy. There is a visceral or emotional rejection of the notion that the upper House should be appointed, as we have not heard a rational explanation of how an elected Chamber would perform the function of the upper House any better. Indeed, if it is elected under any conceivable electoral system discussed in the long hours of debate yesterday and today, we can be sure that independence and cross-party co-operation will vanish in a puff of smoke. We will end up with a situation that no one in their right mind would vote for if they were asked whether they thought that the House of Commons had too few—not too many—professional politicians, and if they were asked whether it should be doubled in size.
	We are being asked to double the community of elected politicians, and put them in two Chambers, rather than one. We are expected to believe that the second Chamber, having secured the same legitimacy as the Commons Chamber—everyone is anxious to give it that legitimacy—will be content to be regarded as the subordinate Chamber. That shows breathtaking naivety, but I do not think that everyone who has enunciated that proposition believes it. I recall a conversation with a profound Front-Bench thinker in my party.

Simon Hughes: That limits it.

Julian Lewis: Indeed. I suggested that that proposition was in danger of creating deadlock between the two Houses, and it would undermine our ability to function if we ever came to power. He gave a purist, nihilist response: "Julian, you must realise that if you oppose interference by Government that would be a very good result."

John Bercow: It was Eric Forth.

Julian Lewis: No, it was not. In fact, it was someone who has taken part in this debate.
	It took a great deal of effort for me to enter the House, and I did not do so to sit around playing a deadlocked game of chess or draughts. I wanted to try to improve things as best I could for my constituents and, perhaps in a small way, for the country. We have been told that the upper House does not include experts in everything. The logic of that argument is that because it does not have experts in everything it should not have experts in anything. As a shadow Defence Minister, I believe that we get far more out of a second Chamber in which the Chief of the Defence Staff, who served under the Prime Minister during his first four years in office, now serves. He has been released from his shackles or harness to serve in the House of Lords, and he can say what he thinks the Government are doing right, and what they are doing wrong. To replace Lord Guthrie with a list-elected party political hack is absolutely absurd. If they are to carry the argument, people who want an elected second Chamber must do better. They must show how elected Members will improve the role of the second Chamber to revise and improve legislation. The role of the Commons Chamber is to introduce legislation, and that complementary role will be served in future, as it has been in the past, only by an appointed second House of Parliament.

Tony Wright: I would have been more impressed by the contribution of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) if I had not just reread the debates on the Reform Act 1832. The arguments about the catastrophic consequences of introducing democracy in the House of Commons find a striking echo in the arguments about introducing a degree of democracy in the second Chamber.
	We have been here many, many times before. I sometimes think that these debates on the House of Lords are the parliamentary equivalent of predictive texting. We need only hear a certain word and we know the speech that will follow. It must be easy for  Hansard reporters, as they hear the words "legitimacy" or "gridlock" and off they go, knowing everything that will follow. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can claim to have listened to us, because he is probably the only Member of the House who has come before us and said, "I've thought about the issue again, and gone back to first principles. I have read and thought my way through it, and I have submitted a proposition that is different from the one in which I used to believe, but I have been persuaded by the arguments." That gives him a particular kind of authority.
	We ought to be resolute and fixed about the purpose of any reform, but flexible about the means of achieving it. In a sense, that is a second order issue. In many respects, the compositional question is a second order issue. We ought to be resolute about the purpose of the second Chamber and the purpose of reform.
	I can claim some slight affinity with my right hon. Friend—I have changed my mind several times on the compositional issue. Before I was a Member of the House, I wrote to  The Guardian saying that the second Chamber should be composed on the basis of random selection. I remember that my letter was decorated with a cartoon which showed two readers of  The Sun talking to each other at the public bar. One was saying to the other, "Cor blimey! Look, I've just been put into the Lords."
	I have believed in functional representation. I have even believed in this House being the electoral college that should choose Members of the second Chamber—not an entirely absurd suggestion, by the way, because it was recommended also by an official commission in 1919. So I have been round the circuit on the issue, but the fixed part of the argument has always been that the House of Lords—the second Chamber—can help us to strengthen our democracy, if we get the design of it right.
	As it happens, the public can help us not at all on the matter. There was a splendid Populus poll for  The Times about a year ago, which found that 75 per cent. of people believed that
	"The Lords should remain a mainly appointed house because this gives it a degree of independence from electoral politics and allows people with a broad range of experience and expertise to be involved"—
	the kind of thing that we have heard many times. In the same poll, though, 72 per cent.—almost exactly the same proportion—believed that
	"At least half of the members of the House of Lords should be elected so that the upper chamber of Parliament has democratic legitimacy".
	The public are entirely unhelpful to us on these compositional questions, except that they seem to be saying that they want a House of Lords that will be effective. We are required to use our judgment to work out how to get an effective House of Lords, which I believe is what most people want. That means that we need to give attention to the design features. Some of those that we are not discussing are as important as those we are debating. Length of tenure, for example, is extremely important for some of these issues, and the compositional question is not the only one of significance. We want a second Chamber that is neither a rival to nor a replica of this House, but which genuinely complements it.
	That is why I say that we should not give excessive attention to the question of election and appointment. There are other questions too. It is quite possible to conceive of a wholly elected House that would be utterly useless if it simply finished up as a clone of this House. We would have made the system worse, rather than better. Similarly, it is possible to conceive of an appointed House that was so lacking in legitimacy that it was quite useless as a complement to this House.
	Legitimacy is a funny word. It is not like pregnancy. There can be more or less legitimacy. Since the reforms that we put in place in 1999, the House of Lords has become more legitimate. It is silly for people who argue for election to say that it has not. It has, which is why it is behaving in a rather more confident way than was the case before. Those who want a second Chamber that is not at all legitimate should have defended the hereditaries. That would have guaranteed a Chamber that was so illegitimate that it could be rolled over routinely by this place and caused us no difficulty at all. The fact that people did not, on the whole, attach themselves to that position indicates that they believed there was a need to move in a more legitimate direction.
	My view is that we can be reasonably intelligent in the way we design the second Chamber. We need enough election to get enough democratic legitimacy, because there is a quaint idea in this country—this goes back to 1832—that those who are engaged in some way in making the laws of the land should have some connection to a democratic process. So there is the argument for enough election to secure enough legitimacy, but at the same time I have always believed that there was a case for enough appointment to get sufficient independence and expertise.
	In that sense, we can have more than one good thing. If we design the second Chamber properly, we can get two good things. We can get a mixed House that gives us enough election to give us enough legitimacy, and we can get enough appointment to give us enough independence and expertise. In a curious way, because the powers of the House of Lords reflect a kind of hybridity—that is, they have an ability to delay, but not to decide—there is a certain kind of sense in matching that with a mixed membership, a hybrid membership that reflects the kind of House that it is.

Clive Efford: Is it not a principle of democracy that people present themselves for re-election? Is that not undermined in my hon. Friend's proposals if people serve only one term?

Tony Wright: That is why I say that the design features such as office renewability matter. I hope that when we get the Bill, we shall give our attention to those aspects.
	What matters fundamentally is the purpose of the House of Lords in our whole system, and that is what we should be fixed about. We have a system where Governments are peculiarly strong.

Jack Straw: May I pick up the point raised a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford)? There is an assumption in what is said that we are all immortal—all of us go on for ever being subject to re-election. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) notice that the fact that some Members are likely or due voluntarily to retire at the next election does not in any way reduce their activity rate or their ability to represent or speak up for those who elected them?

Tony Wright: That is a sensible point, which I am glad my right hon. Friend has made.
	We have often been described as having the strongest system of government in the western world. That is because we draw our Governments out of Parliament. Routinely, therefore, the Executive controls Parliament, and that gives a particular character to our system. Although we talk about scrutiny in a rather high-minded way, most of the real argument goes on inside governing parties in this country, because that is where the power lies and where votes are ultimately decided. That means that we have a scrutiny gap across the system as a whole.
	Take the world of quangos. Much of the government of this country is done by unelected bodies—quangos. Who scrutinises those bodies? We do not, in any serious way. Sometimes we dip our toes in the water, but in no serious way do we do it. One of the jobs that a reformed House of Lords could do is the most detailed, robust scrutiny of unelected government.
	There is no shortage of scrutinising jobs that an effective second Chamber ought to do, which we know we will not do because that is not in our bloodstream. Governments propose something, Oppositions oppose it and brokerage disposes it. That is how this place is and always will be. I do not hear those who are resisting reform of the second Chamber proposing alterations to our political system that would make this place different. That will not happen.
	In thinking about the design of the second Chamber, we need to bear in mind the complementary relationship between ourselves and the second Chamber in relation to a Government and an Executive who are uniquely strong. We have not referred much to evidence in the debate, but some good evidence has been found by the constitution unit at University college, which has been analysing in detail exactly what the semi-reformed House of Lords has been doing since 1999. Its conclusion is interesting:
	"A stronger upper house does not necessarily mean a weaker lower house—indeed possibly quite the reverse. Although ministers try to present arguments as Lords versus Commons, the far more interesting dynamic is that of Parliament versus executive. The existence of the Lords as a serious longstop has given a greater confidence to MPs to extract concessions from ministers, and the greater rebelliousness of the Commons also acts to boost the power of peers."
	The final sentence is the crucial one:
	"This inter-cameral partnership, if it continues and grows, could represent a real shift of power within the British Westminster system."
	That, for me, is the issue. Do we want to shift the power between the Executive and Parliament? If so, we will support these proposals.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). It is worth reminding the House that during the last Parliament the Select Committee that he chairs produced a unanimous report outlining the way forward, with proposals not wholly dissimilar to those in the White Paper. If his eloquence can secure unanimity in his Select Committee, perhaps he can make similar progress in the House this afternoon.
	Anyone watching this debate unfold over the past two days might ask themselves what on earth MPs are doing arguing about a subject that does not resonate outside, on which it is difficult to secure agreement, and which generates friction within the two parties. "Why not leave it all alone?", I hear them say. To which good question there are two good answers. First, the last time the House voted on this, the option that secured the fewest votes was that of a wholly appointed House, and it is perverse of the House to stick with an option that it rejected. Secondly, less than two years ago, the three main parties went to the country on a proposition that they would reform the upper Chamber and replace it with a more democratic one. One of the themes in the debate over the past two days has been our unique relationship with the electorate, and it is sensible to seek to honour an obligation that the three main parties took on in the last election.
	If, despite those manifestos, the House now wants an all-appointed Chamber, it should vote openly for that in the second vote tonight. If it rejects that, it should then alight on one or more of the elected options. We would be greatly assisted in that task if the Liberal Democrats reflected further on the meaning of the word "predominantly", as in "predominantly elected". They interpret it to mean 100 per cent. elected, which most of us would regard as exclusively elected, but to exclude 60 per cent., which most of us would regard as predominantly elected. I do not want to be discourteous to the Liberal Democrats, and I appreciate that anything over 20 per cent. is a percentage to which they are unaccustomed—

David Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

George Young: In a moment.
	However, if they want to reach their goal of 80 per cent., they will need a Bill, and they will not get that unless we alight on one of the options this evening. At this late stage, I hope that their spokesman will tell the House that, on reflection, they will vote for additional options over and above 80 per cent.

David Heath: Let me simply repeat that 80 per cent. elected is our manifesto commitment. It is what we have argued for throughout this process and what the vast majority of my colleagues will vote for this evening. The difficulty lies not with how we vote but with how the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues and those of the Leader of the House vote, in terms of whether they are prepared to support a properly reformed House.

George Young: The trouble is that we all seem to know more about the Liberal Democrat manifesto than the hon. Gentleman does. The word that it uses is "predominantly", and I hope that he will stick to that.
	A word to those in my party who are, even at this late stage, still undecided as to how to vote: having seen the problems caused for this Administration now that the genie of Lords reform is out of the bottle, I would want the process to be completed before my party takes over in government. It has the capacity to divide and destabilise a party; that is bad enough in opposition, but far worse in government. The stated position of our leader, the next Prime Minister but one, is that it is time to move on. Even though there was some dissent, the party's official view for the past three general elections has been to move in the direction of the White Paper. We have repeatedly said that when the Government do the right thing, they should be supported. I believe that they are, belatedly, doing the right thing, and that is why I propose to support them.

Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that when 80:20 was last voted on, more Conservative Members voted against it than for it? Does he also accept that we are on a genuinely free vote tonight?

George Young: If my hon. Friend looks at the vote on the all-appointed option, he will see that more Conservative MPs voted against it than voted for it. One can interpret the votes in more than one way.

Andrew Tyrie: Does my right hon. Friend recall that there was an overall majority of 30 for some form of predominantly elected House? The votes for democracy were divided around various options—a problem that the Liberals do not seem to have grasped. Furthermore, last time four Conservative Members succeeded in voting for 60 per cent. and 100 per cent. They thought they were voting for 80 per cent. but got themselves into the wrong Lobby by mistake.

George Young: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that the House can exercise some collective ingenuity this evening and avoid the errors of four years ago.
	When the Prime Minister contemplates his legacy, the chapter on constitutional reform will be incomplete. When he set out on this journey 10 years ago, he was warned not to do stage 1 without stage 2—in other words, that before he removed the hereditary peers, he should have a clear vision of what was to be put in their place. He was told that if he did not do that, the process would stall, as indeed it has. In their response to the Wakeham report, the Government said that they would
	"make every effort to ensure that the second stage has been approved by Parliament before the next general election"—
	that is, the 2001 general election. Subsequently the Prime Minister made a further inexcusable mistake. He was elected in 2001 on a manifesto that he wrote, in which he committed himself to a "more representative and democratic" House of Lords. A week before the vote on that commitment, he announced that he had changed his mind and wanted a wholly appointed House. Whatever diminishing influence he may now have within his party, had he voted in line with his manifesto four years ago, I am sure that 80 per cent. vote would have been carried. Now he has changed his mind.
	I want to make three brief points. In this debate, some people have taken a two-dimensional view of the relationship between the two Houses, whereby if one Chamber gains in authority, the other must lose it. However, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, the dynamics are far more complex. For 90 per cent. of the time, we are not rivals to the upper House, but partners in holding the Government to account. The House of Lords adds weight and value to arguments that we have adduced in this House or arguments that we have not had time to deploy. I would argue that over the past 10 years, the House of Lords has gained in authority, and that it has done so not at the expense of this House, but at the expense of the Executive. I would further argue that, if its legitimacy were enhanced by the injection of some democracy, its authority would be further enhanced—again, not at our expense, but at the expense of the Executive. A stronger House of Lords is a threat not to the Commons but to the Executive. For that reason, we should welcome, not obstruct, a more effective second Chamber.
	On composition, my view is that there is a role in the upper House for an appointed element—those who served in the armed forces, the generals, the surgeons, the lawyers, the mandarins, and the professors. I agree with everything that has been said about their contribution to the proceedings, and I would want them to remain—at a level of about 20 or 30 per cent. However, the party political peers, whatever the percentage, should be elected. Unlike the Cross Benchers, they are political animals; they are not political virgins. If we look at those who have been appointed since 2001, we find that 69 per cent. previously fought an election—either general or local, devolved or European. If we look at some of the party peers who have not fought an election—the Lord Chancellor, for example—we find that they would have liked to do so, but could not find a constituency to select them!
	If we look at what happens in general elections, the fact is that large numbers of Conservative peers are out banging on doors on our behalf. I find nothing wrong at all in saying to those who are members of a political party and who want to sit in a second Chamber that is going to pass laws that they should have one final gentle brush with the electorate along the lines proposed in the White Paper. That confers a legitimacy that no other process can.
	Finally, I want to deal with the other side of the legitimacy coin—namely, the rival mandate argument. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) demolished the argument yesterday, so I add but a footnote to what he said. Let us consider the proposition in the White Paper, with 50 per cent. appointed and 50 per cent. elected, and the 50 per cent. elected being replaced a third at a time at European election time. At any one point in time, at most 17 per cent. of the upper House could claim a more recent mandate than that of this House; and of that 17 per cent., some would remain loyal to the Administration. That is hardly a strong platform on which to base a claim for a rival mandate and extra legitimacy over and above this Parliament.
	Yet it goes further than that. Members of this House are all elected on the same day on the basis of the same party manifesto; we are elected to the pre-eminent House in Parliament, which sustains the Executive and produces the Prime Minister. We submit ourselves for re-election, which is the country's verdict on our performance. None of those conditions would apply to the second Chamber as proposed in the White Paper. Elected Members would not be elected all at the same time, but over a longer period. They would have no mandate to rival the mandate of those in this House: indeed, some would be not elected, but appointed. The notion that they could somehow convert themselves into an equally legitimate Chamber that could challenge the authority of this House is strictly for the birds.
	In all the proposals for the second Chamber, it is clearly defined as complementary and subordinate to this House. Its only powers are those given to it by this House, which remains pre-eminent. The second Chamber would simply not be able—even if it wanted to—unilaterally to change its powers after reform, any more than it can now.
	In common with the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, I find echoes in today's debate of earlier debates in which we heard that the accumulated wisdom of those who govern the country would be lost if the franchise were extended. The good folk of other countries that used to be behind the iron curtain but are now democracies—or, indeed, the good folk of Iraq and Afghanistan—might be surprised to learn that we regard it as a matter of controversy that people should elect those who govern them. This reform is long overdue and, when it has happened, people will wonder what all the fuss was about. We should get on with it tonight.

David Clelland: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), for whom I have a great deal of respect, though I cannot say that I agree with much that he said—apart from his comments about the rather curious position of the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) descended on the word "legitimacy", which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and suggested that the House of Lords was illegitimate because it was not elected. That is a rather curious position for the Liberal Democrats to adopt, given that they want only 80 per cent. of the upper House to be elected, which means, according to their argument, that the other 20 per cent. would be "illegitimate". That would lead to one of the conflicts that I foresee with a hybrid House.
	I agree very much with the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), in particular with his central point about whether any changes will add value to the process of governance in this country. We should all consider that crucial point.
	I shall support option No. 1 tonight, which calls for a reformed, but non-elected second Chamber. That is not, as some have suggested, a move to support the status quo. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) suggested that yesterday, and quoted from a letter that I circulated earlier this week, but he could not have read it very closely because those who signed the letter stated very clearly in bold type:
	"We are not arguing for the maintenance of the status quo".
	The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right before he makes such comments— [Interruption.] Yes, he is a Liberal, that is true.
	The current position is unsustainable. I am in favour of reform and I intend to suggest what I believe to be quite radical changes to the current arrangement. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) that, in the initial stages, we should be thinking about the powers of the House of Lords. Once we have decided what those powers should be, it would then be the appropriate time to decide on whether we need to change the composition. However, we are where we are.
	I am opposed to elections for any part of the House of Lords on the basis that a hybrid Chamber would, as I said, lead to a conflict with some Members claiming legitimacy and others not. I also believe that, as the Father of the House said yesterday, any hybrid Chamber would inevitably lead to a fully elected second Chamber in the long term, which would definitely challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. I cite in evidence of that statement the comments of Lord Strathclyde on the radio this morning, who said that an elected Lords would have the legitimacy to do the job of
	"stopping bad laws getting through Parliament".
	That rather gives the game away, because what Lord Strathclyde might regard as bad law—minimum wage legislation, for example—could be viewed as a good law by hon. Members in this Chamber. Clearly, Lord Strathclyde believes that elections would legitimise the House of Lords, giving it the power to stop an elected Government carrying out their manifesto commitment.

Gordon Prentice: rose—

David Clelland: I am not giving way, because other Members are anxious to contribute and there is not much time left.
	The system of proportional representation has also been mentioned. It would undoubtedly be used for the election of Members to the upper House, but it is, in fact, just another system of appointment—any list system is a system of appointment by elected party leaders—and would lead to a conflict in constituencies between Members of that House and of this Chamber. Some have argued that, apparently, there are no such problems with the election of Members of the European Parliament, but I suspect that that is not true in all cases. Members of the European Parliament are, of course, in a different parliament and we are talking about Members in this Parliament. The proper comparison to be made is that with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, particularly in terms of the problems caused by list Members in the constituencies of elected Members. We would encounter the same problem here.
	The Leader of the House has prayed in aid public opinion, claiming that it favours elections. As we all know, public opinion depends on the question asked. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) referred earlier to one question that was asked and the curious results that emerged. The public will realise that what is being proposed is the election of at least another 270, perhaps another 500-plus, elected politicians—at an estimated cost, according to this morning's report from Lord Lipsey, of more than £1 billion.

Jack Straw: May I say that Lord Lipsey's estimate is absolute utter balderdash and nonsense? It cannot be the case that a partly elected other place would cost £1 billion when the total cost of this place, according to the most extravagant analysis, is £300 million.

David Clelland: My right hon. Friend does not understand that Lord Lipsey is talking about the costs over the suggested 15-year period. They come to more than £1 billion.
	Let me clarify my preferred alternative—it is my personal opinion, which is not necessarily shared by all my right hon. and hon. Friends who signed the circulated letter. I believe that we can satisfy the demands of the Labour party manifesto, which said that Labour believes in "a reformed Upper Chamber" that
	"must be effective, legitimate and more representative without challenging the primacy of the House of Commons",
	and the demands of the White Paper, which laid down seven principles. Those principles were the primacy of the House of Commons; complementarity of the House of Lords; a more legitimate House of Lords; no overall majority for any party—though I am not sure how that can be guaranteed under any system of elections—a non-political element, although we would certainly not have that in a fully elected House; a more representative House of Lords; and continuity of membership. We can satisfy all those principles and the pledge in the Labour manifesto without moving towards a partly or fully elected second Chamber.
	I believe that the hereditary principle should be abolished. If there is any certainty about today's decisions, the proposal to abolish that principle will almost certainly be carried. The system of appointing Members to the House of Lords should be changed to provide for a much wider franchise so that the Prime Minister does not appoint everybody. The current system is unsustainable. Organisations such as the TUC, the CBI, local authorities and other elected chambers, which play a legitimate and important part in our democracy and have a democratic structure at their centre, should make nominations to the second Chamber. If we had an appointments commission to vet the nominations and ensure adherence to the principles on which the upper House was set up, we could guarantee proper representation of women and ethnic minorities, a broad cross-section of skills and abilities and broad geographical representation, all of which would be much more difficult to achieve under any of the other proposed systems and certainly under the present one.
	I believe that we can move towards providing for a second Chamber that fulfils all the criteria in the Labour manifesto and the White Paper, avoids the huge costs of creating another elected Chamber, produces a more representative and legitimate Chamber, which is populated by representatives with broad knowledge and experience, and can carry out the important work that the House of Lords needs to undertake. I believe that that is possible under the new structure that I described.

Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). He represents the north-east, I come from the north-west and our views on the subject are identical.
	The speeches in the debate so far have been outstanding. They have shown commitment to democracy and to this House and displayed a sense of history. That is right in any such debate.
	I hope that I am not out of order to say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that perhaps in future, such debates, which last for two days, should not necessarily include speeches from two Front-Bench Members. That applies to speeches by Opposition Front Benchers as well as Government Front Benchers, and, for that matter—perhaps I say this with more venom—Liberal Democrat Front Benchers. The Liberal Democrat spokesman in today's debate spoke for longer than either the Government or the official Opposition spokesmen.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) does not have to give way to Members if he is claiming that interventions are the reason for the length of his speech.
	The hon. Gentleman did not do his case any good by referring to the appointment of former Members of this place to the House of Lords. The Liberal Democrats could be accused of all sorts of things in respect of the people whom they have appointed from this place, including failed politicians or politicians who changed sides, to safe seats in the upper House.
	The hon. Gentleman should also examine one or two of the reports of the Modernisation Committee, which the Leader of the House chairs, about Lords messages and the Reasons Committee. Those matters are being discussed by the Modernisation Committee and it does not need an elected element in the House of Lords to put them right.
	The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) always makes thoughtful speeches. However, I want to pick him up on one point. He referred to a poll that gave the House of Lords great credit. Let me cite another. The ICM poll in 2005 found that 72 per cent. of those questioned thought that the Lords did a good job, meaning "very good" to "fairly good", as opposed to only 23 per cent. who thought that it did a bad job, meaning "fairly bad" to "very bad". The hon. Gentleman chairs an important Committee and I stress to him and other hon. Members that many other Chambers and legislatures would die for such figures. How would election of another set of politicians increase confidence in a second Chamber?
	The Father of the House went to the heart of the matter yesterday when he said:
	"The primacy derives absolutely—not just in part—from the fact that we are the elected Chamber, and because of that the other House observes conventions."—[ Official Report, 6 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1427.]
	I had the honour to serve on the Joint Committee that dealt with Lords conventions. As I said in an intervention on the Leader of the House yesterday, that Committee stated clearly that if the composition of the House of Lords was changed, another Committee comprising different Members would have to review the position on conventions.
	The Father of the House tabled a written question to the Leader of the House asking whether Members of the House of Lords would have the same freedom as Members of the House of Commons to make representations on behalf of their constituents. I shall not go through the majority of the reply, but the last sentence states:
	"The House of Lords should not duplicate the functions of the House of Commons."—[ Official Report, 1 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1469W.]
	The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge referred to that in a way when he mentioned the complications, problems and conflicts that arise between Members of this House, Members of the European Parliament and especially Members of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly Members. I have spoken especially to Labour Members—we have so few Members in Scotland—and they are deeply concerned and often placed in difficult positions by the interference of Members of the Scottish Parliament in matters that relate to the House of Commons.
	It is extraordinary to discuss the composition of the House of Lords before we have decided what we want it to do. Surely that is putting the cart before the horse. I believe that we should examine the role of this House first and consider how the House of Commons can hold the Government of the day to account and properly scrutinise legislation. We need to make the role of the Back Bencher more positive and meaningful. It has not been mentioned—surprisingly, not even by the Leader of the House—that the Modernisation Committee is currently dealing with that matter and also examining how the House might use non-legislative time. That is important. Surely we should put our House in order before we start messing about with the House of Lords.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said yesterday:
	"The House of Lords is exactly what we say we want. It is independent; some of its Members have significant expertise; it has limited power; it does not challenge the House of Commons; and all parties are represented, although none of them has a majority. It does almost everything that we want it to do, but it does not satisfy the test... of whether or not it is democratic."—[ Official Report, 6 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1434.]

Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman was a sterling Chairman of the Procedure Committee. However, does he accept that we should not delay reforming the House of Lords because of the time we are taking to try to reform the House of Commons? The two can go ahead as fast as they can in their own right. We should also acknowledge that the way in which election to this House works tends to give the Government an absolute majority and thus control over the business and reform of this House.

Nicholas Winterton: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on his last point. He was a member of the Procedure Committee when I chaired it, and still is, I believe. To have credibility, it is critical that the House as a whole takes more control of its time and when and how it debates matters. The Back Bencher is very much an afterthought in this House. The Government control the time of the House and, sadly, the usual channels ensure that that arrangement continues. We should look to this House, and what we want the House of Lords to do, before we deal with the composition of the other place.
	Returning to the issue of election, let me quote from a paper produced by Lord Norton of Louth, who holds the chair of government at the university of Hull—he is currently celebrating 20 years of holding that position. He says:
	"Once one introduces election of a second chamber, the core accountability starts to be challenged."
	Therefore, on that issue, I disagree fundamentally with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). Lord North continues:
	"Election of a second chamber will not necessary render it co-equal with the first."
	On that, we may have some common ground. He goes on:
	"What it will do, though, is create a basis for the second chamber to claim more powers than the existing House and to employ those powers. Members will have an electoral base and claim to act on behalf of those"—

John Bercow: I regard that as an absolutely preposterous phantom fear. Can my hon. Friend tell the House the identity of a single Member of the House of Lords who would argue, for example, that a revitalised and elected second Chamber should have control of taxation and expenditure? If there is such a person, surely we are robust enough simply to say no.

Nicholas Winterton: I have great regard for my hon. Friend, who is one of the more articulate Members of the House, but I am not sure that he has a valid point. We do not know what will happen, because there is not currently an elected House of Lords or an elected element. There is every chance that such matters will develop. Does he give no credit to Lord Norton, who has held the chair of government at Hull university for 20 years? I would have thought that his view would be respected.
	How can anyone consider that electing an individual for 15 years just once makes that person in any way accountable to the electorate? It is an absolute nonsense.
	Reference has been made to the cost of the Government proposals by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge. The Leader of the House leapt up to the Dispatch Box with great alacrity and said that that analysis was absolute nonsense, but he had clearly not read the paper produced by Lord Lipsey. It states:
	"The costs which follow are those for the 15 years from the first elections and are based on—
	the Leader of the House's—
	"preferred option of 50 per cent. elected.
	Cost of elections...£90m. Cost of elected members £1,301m. LESS: saving on fewer life peers...£402m NET COST £899m...Cost of redundancy package for retiring peers... £54m. Cost of additional accommodation...£49m TOTAL COST over 15 years £1,092m".
	I wonder whether that would also cover the cost of all the secretaries, personal assistants and research assistants. I say to the people of this country that I would prefer to spend that money on hospitals, roads, police and schools than on an elected House of Lords. I hope that the House will stand up for the Lords as they sit today.

Chris Mullin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). I agreed with most, but not all, of his points, especially when he quoted Lord Norton of Hull—

Patrick Cormack: Louth.

Chris Mullin: I apologise. Hull was where the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and I went to university.
	I wish to follow the trail blazed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that I am not against reform, but I am against "big bang" solutions. I shall refer to that in more detail in a moment.
	I agree with the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that we are starting in the wrong place. The question that we should ask ourselves is not how we can create some sort of democratic utopia, but what function we want it to fulfil. Surely the answer is that we want a second Chamber that scrutinises, revises and, to a limited extent, challenges this place and certainly the Executive.
	As one or two other Members have said, however, the public are not clamouring for more elected politicians, as many of us from the north-east discovered when a referendum was held on whether to have a directly elected North East assembly. Although the rulers of the north-east had talked of little else for the preceding 15 years, when we put the matter to the ballot we discovered that the public were not too enthusiastic. I suspect that the public would, however, like to see more effective government, and who can say that they are wrong about that? Imperfect though it is, the House of Lords is already relatively effective, and could be made more effective with a few modest reforms that I might mention in a moment.
	I was present at the Channel 4 awards the other day, and the award for "Peer of the Year" went to our noble Friend Lord Rooker, who has been a distinguished Minister in both this and the other place, in many Departments. He made the point, even at the risk of upsetting some Members of this House, that he found the House of Lords, as currently functioning, more vigorous in its scrutiny of Government than this House when he was a Minister here. I am not convinced that a second Chamber filled with those who failed to get into this end of the building will necessarily be more effective than the one that we have already.

David Clelland: To return to the referendum in the north-east, there is a parallel, because although the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos contained proposals to introduce an elected element in the House of Lords, the Labour manifesto did not mention anything about it. Could the Government introduce the radical proposals in the White Paper without having a referendum first?

Chris Mullin: Talking of "big bang" solutions, to which I shall return, I am certainly not anxious to see the matter put to a referendum, for which I suspect that the public are not especially enthusiastic.
	In particular, I do not want to see a Lord Sunderland floating about, who will have opinions on everything and responsibility for nothing. As one of my hon. Friends said—my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge, I think—the correct comparison is not with Euro MPs, with whom, by and large, we function well, but with what happens in Wales and Scotland, where we trip over Assembly Members and MSPs every five minutes.

Derek Conway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Mullin: I would like to make a little progress.
	To give one little warning to those who are so keen on elections, the list system, with which we might end up, means 100 per cent. appointment, not 100 per cent. election. There is no way that the party apparatuses would let such an opportunity slip.
	To elaborate on the point about "big bang" solutions, history shows that we make progress when we stick to what a majority agree about. That is especially the case with Lords reform. Everyone in this House has a different opinion on what the other House should look like. We have heard a good many interesting opinions today—notably from that thoughtful gentleman the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who wants to get rid of Ministers—but history shows that those who try to shake things up by applying the "big bang" method achieve nothing in the end. Nothing changes.
	The one time over the past few Parliaments when we did make a bit of progress was when the present Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), was Leader of the House. She focused firmly on an issue on which most people in the House of Commons and outside it agreed, removal of the hereditaries. She was besieged from all sides with suggestions as to how she might improve her proposals, perhaps by making them more elaborate—suggestions that she opt for a 100 per cent. elected, a 50 per cent. elected or some other form of elected House—but she focused firmly on what she and the Government intended to achieve, and having declined to be distracted, she secured 90 per cent. of what she was after.
	That, I think, is the model to adopt. I am in favour of small steps, and sticking by and large to what most of us agree on and what is easily defensible. I support the removal of the remaining hereditaries, as, I think, do most members of most parties. I do not suggest that those 92 hereditaries need have their heads chopped off and exhibited on spikes; I favour a merciful solution. I do not even mind allowing them to retain access to the club facilities during their remaining years, or making some of them life peers. However, I think that everyone agrees that the hereditaries must go.
	The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) shakes his head. He is probably an exception. I am also not certain about the Liberal Democrats, and others who put their names to amendment (c) to motion 11. I think that the amendment could cause nothing to change, although those who signed it say that they want everything to change.

Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me and with Lord Steel of Aikwood, the former Liberal leader, that the best way of dealing with the 92 is to end the absurd, ridiculous by-elections and just let them die?

Chris Mullin: I am a bit more radical and ambitious than that. I am told that the youngest will survive until 2030. But, one way or another, I would like to see the back of them.
	I favour—I think we all do—some form of arm's length appointment system to avoid the controversies in which successive Governments have become embroiled over the years. I also favour some form of redundancy scheme, not necessarily involving much money. I would start with those who have not shown up for the last few months: that would remove several hundred. A redundancy scheme to reduce the numbers would be necessary, because 750 would clearly be a ludicrous, indefensible number in any second Chamber anywhere in the world.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Mullin: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
	After we have taken those modest steps, we can have another look at the position. I fear, however, that if we opt for something that is far too ambitious and enters unknown territory, we will end up with no change at all. That has been the history of House of Lords reform, and that is why many of the proposals that were talked about in 1911 took about 100 years to be implemented.
	This evening I will vote for the retention of a bicameral Chamber, for a fully appointed Chamber and for the removal of hereditaries, and will vote against the other motions.

Gerald Howarth: It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I can see that, in a future Conservative Administration, a place will be reserved for him—somewhere else.
	I have something of a handicap, in that I am an unashamed traditional Tory. That is why I shall be voting to retain a wholly appointed Chamber, and voting for the continuation of the hereditaries. As a Conservative, I believe in a fundamental principle: if it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. Nothing I have heard in the debate—I was here for a large part of it yesterday, and have been here for all of it so far today—convinces me that change is what is needed now. Have I received a shedload of letters about this from my constituents?

Patrick Cormack: Not one.

Gerald Howarth: I have not received a single one. Is there any appetite for another round of elections among my electors in Aldershot? I see no evidence of it. Do they want another, more expensive House? [Hon. Members: "No!"] I see no evidence of that either.
	I must correct the Leader of the House, who estimated the cost of this House at £300 million. That is an understatement. According to the most recent costing, this place costs £360 million, while the other place costs £106 million. At a time when we are awaiting a further squeezing of public expenditure by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the idea that we should we say to our electors, "By the way, we want to reproduce the House of Commons. It will cost you a lot more money and involve you in a lot more elections" is strictly for the birds.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gerald Howarth: I will give way, but not yet.

John Bercow: rose—

Gerald Howarth: I will give way to my hon. Friend, who has the qualities of a jack-in-the-box. I would like him to demonstrate that now, although I am a very good friend of his.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend spoke of his support for the retention of the hereditary peers. If he seriously believes, in 2007, that a seat in Parliament should be a prize for historic battles won, services rendered or favours done, would he, in arguing the case for the status quo, care to confirm that he opposed the Reform Act 1832, and would still oppose it?

Gerald Howarth: I agree that some of the characteristics my hon. Friend has mentioned qualify people for membership of the other place. What he must explain, however, is how it will come about that, under the arrangements that he supports, those who are "elected" will be political appointees from a list. For that is what will happen.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gerald Howarth: I will not give way.

Philip Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Howarth: Of course I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Philip Davies: Will my hon. Friend reinforce his point about none of his constituents being bothered about House of Lords reform by confirming that when our constituents do complain about Parliament, it is not those in the House of Lords about whom they complain, but us in the House of Commons? Perhaps we should take the log out of our own eye before we start taking the speck out of the eye of the House of Lords.

Gerald Howarth: As always, I agree 100 per cent. with my hon. Friend, who is a very sound man and demonstrates some of the great characteristics and qualities of Yorkshire.
	Overwhelmingly, our present system works. First and foremost, it holds this place to account. Between 1999 and 2005 the Government were defeated in the other place on some 300 occasions, and in four out of 10 of those cases this House decided to accede to the wisdom of the other place. The idea that the other place is supine is absurd.
	There is universal agreement in this House that primacy resides with us. That is unquestioned, but I think it is at risk of being put in jeopardy. In interventions on the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), I questioned the idea that somehow, if Members were elected, they would not assert the same rights as we enjoy here. It may well be, as was suggested yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), that the kind of people who will put themselves up for election to a place with little power are the kind of people who will not pass muster here. As was posited by the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), the first thing they will do is demand parity with this place, and they will get the newspapers on their side. The whole dynamic has been hugely underestimated by those who feel that there must be an element of election in the upper House.
	The idea of a partly elected and partly appointed House will lead to the most incredible problems. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South alluded to them. There will be two classes of Member, and those who were appointed will be made to feel inferior to those who were elected under whatever phoney electoral system enabled them to make their way to the upper House. They will be made to feel second-class. As someone said yesterday, if a Government motion is defeated in the other place on the back of the appointed Members, those in this place will be able to say "They were appointed, so the decision has no legitimacy." Therefore, what will the proposals create?  [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) says, they will create a dog's breakfast, and there will be the huge potential that resentment will be caused between the two classes of peer created. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) rightly pointed out what already happens in Scotland and Wales, with MSPs and AMs marching all over Members' territory. The idea that elected Members will not interfere in constituencies or regions is wrong. They will charge all over our territory.
	I want to talk briefly about why I believe that the hereditaries are important. I was against what my noble Friend Lord Cranborne did a few years ago, but I think that the outcome was beneficial, because I believe that if the hereditaries are completely removed, the position of the sovereign will be exposed as the only hereditary office in the land. I put it to some of my hon. Friends whom I know believe in the role of a constitutional monarchy—there are some in other parties who do not, as they are republicans—that that is an issue. Therefore, I am afraid that on this matter my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) is rather too radical for me.

John Bercow: That is the first and last time that that will be said.

Gerald Howarth: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire did not feel that that was a disparaging remark.
	We need to think long and hard before we remove appointed Members in the other place. As the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) said, they have experience. Let me compare them with the Members of this House. The other place has military people, lawyers and doctors. Lord Winston has been mentioned. That he is in the other place is a fantastic contribution to our legislature, and other countries that do not have the same sort of system as us are impoverished by not having such figures. One of the issues that I am concerned about is that increasingly in this House we do not have Members with a broad range of experience of life in our country. We have a growing number of people who come through the political system. Therefore, this House currently has 60 Labour Members who have been politicians or political organisers of some sort, and we have 20 such Members in my party. Increasingly I see in our own party people who come up— [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) worked for five or six years in a very important industry and one that is very successful in our country. Let me also say that 38 per cent. of my hon. Friends have had experience in business, compared with 7 per cent. of Labour Members. Yet in the other place there are military personnel for instance. As a Defence spokesman, I find it incredibly valuable that I am able to call on their knowledge. The debates that are held in the other place are much better informed by virtue of the fact that there is such experience, not only from the military but from business men.
	I wish at this point to salute a splendid appointee. He has been a great contributor to the Labour party, but I believe that Lord Drayson—who as Minister for Defence Procurement is in a sense my opposite number—has done a splendid job. That demonstrates the benefit of bringing into the other place business men who would not stand for election to this House or the other place.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Howarth: I am sorry, but I have given way twice. If the hon. Lady will forgive me I shall not do so again, as I am not qualified to extend my time if I give way to her.
	I also support the idea of the bishops remaining because I think that they are essential to the preservation of the Christian faith as a central part of our national life. I also believe that former Members of this House have a role to play. Lord Rooker has been mentioned; he is doing splendid work in the other place. I would also single out my noble Friends Lord Howe, Lord Hurd and my great friend Lord Forsyth—and Lord Steel from the Liberals. They are all making a valuable contribution. If we do not have them in the House of Lords, we deny the public the right to have the benefit of their experience. I believe that that adds to our country, rather than removes from it.
	I also believe that the hereditaries provide continuity to our country. When my noble Friend Lord Astor stood up in the debate about "the shot at dawns" he was able to inform the House about the discussions that he had had with his grandfather—the Earl Haig—about that matter. We throw out such continuity at our peril. Let me also say, in parentheses, that 70 per cent. of the hereditary Tory peers are aged between 40 and 60, and only 60 per cent. of Labour peers are aged between 40 and 60, so we in the Tory party have a vibrant young hereditary peerage.
	The argument that the Prime Minister has stuffed the other place with cronies is entirely true. However, he can be held to account for that.  [Interruption.] As has been said, he is paying the price for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon made exactly that point yesterday. Like my hon. Friend, I do not want an independent commission. As they ask in Walthamstow, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Such commissions mean that we hand over to somebody else. Let me recite what my hon. Friend said yesterday about Sir Hayden Phillips. He said
	"that Hayden Phillips and a committee of people like him should have the power to decide who should be legislators and who should not, I find nonsense and abhorrent."—[ Official Report, 6 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1436.]
	I rest my case.
	I believe that change is unnecessary, and therefore I shall be supporting the status quo tonight. Those who argue for change have a duty to this House and to the country to set out what the powers of a changed House of Lords should be before imposing that on the people of our country.

Michael Wills: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), although I find myself in disagreement on almost every point that he has just made. However, I agree with him on one point: we should vote on this matter tonight as a matter of principle.
	When this issue last came before this House, I voted against all the options because I felt that the proposals had been formulated in such a way that they were bound to end up in the way that they did. I wished to signal my disquiet, and I did so in the hope—indeed, the expectation—that the House would soon have another opportunity to consider the question in a way better designed to achieve progress. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on his brave efforts to do that.
	I have no idea what the outcome of the votes tonight will be, but this time I shall vote not symbolically or tactically, but for what I believe to be the best option. The right to vote remains the most potent protection of the individual against the powerful. Democracy built on universal suffrage is the foundation of our nation. That principle, for which so many fought so hard and for so long, needs to be enshrined—not put aside.
	Over the past two days we have heard several speeches, from Members whose personal democratic credentials are impeccable, against any form of election in the House of Lords. That argument rests on the premise that the democratic principle can be compromised because the second Chamber revises and scrutinises but remains subordinate to the House of Commons where the democratic principle remains paramount. However, the task of revising and scrutinising legislation is not negligible. It still represents the exercise of considerable power and it needs to be able to command consent from the citizens of this country. The primary qualification for anyone in either Chamber who seeks to legislate on behalf of the people of this country must be that they have been chosen by the people of this country to do so.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Wills: Usually, I would happily sit down to allow my hon. and learned Friend to illuminate the House, but I have little time and there are still other Members who wish to speak, so I shall continue if I may.
	Some might argue that a principle can remain substantially intact even if it is embellished somewhat, but such embellishment must justify its existence. I am not convinced that it does so in this case. There are many distinguished Members of the House of Lords who make invaluable contributions, and tribute has been paid to them by Members of all parties in this House. However, we should not make a principle out of a particular. Distinction in one sphere of public life is not axiomatically a qualification to pronounce with authority, or contribute usefully, to debate on every issue that comes before a legislature. Experience and status do not always generate wisdom. They can also generate rigidity and self-righteousness. Of course all legislation and legislators benefit from guidance and advice from experts, but nothing has ever prevented members of either House from availing themselves of such advice as they need it. There is no need to compromise the precious principle of democracy in order to be able to do that.
	We have heard time and again in the past two days that the main concern of those opposed to applying the democratic principle to the second Chamber is that a democratically elected second Chamber will threaten the primacy of this House and lead to legislative deadlock. I am not in favour of any threats to the primacy of this House or of legislative deadlock, but I see no reason why either of these unwelcome outcomes need follow the House of Lords becoming democratically elected. We should not confuse conflict and tension with gridlock. Conflict and tension are inevitable in any bicameral system. Indeed, one of the cardinal virtues of a bicameral system—and the reason why I support one—is precisely that the second Chamber can act to fetter the power of the first. The idea that conflict and tension do not occur under the current arrangements and that the House of Lords is a subservient creature of this Chamber is a curious one to anybody who has observed how the other place has deployed the power of the timetable and exploited every Government's understandable reluctance to wield the Parliament Act too frequently in order to hinder, obstruct and defeat the passage of legislation. Indeed, several distinguished Members have highlighted the way in which the two Chambers have co-operated in seeking to fetter the Executive.
	Nor would a hybrid second Chamber remove the possibility of conflict and tension; indeed, it would make such conflict just as likely—only slightly more complex. In practice, any majority of the elected Members of the second Chamber will feel that they have democratic legitimacy in challenging the House of Commons, and any form of hybrid solution is an unstable stew. So those who are concerned that a wholly elected House of Lords would produce legislative deadlock should, following their own logic, be opposed to any system that would allow the possibility of democratically elected Members securing a majority in the House of Lords.
	Of course, democratically elected Members of the second Chamber may well feel they have greater legitimacy in challenging the Government, and that may generate more conflict and tension, which could become debilitating. However, the way to deal with that possibility is not to sacrifice the democratic principle, but to define with greater clarity the respective roles of the two Chambers. This is needed, and it is an essential companion to reform of the composition of the House of Lords. However, I am afraid that I disagree with all those who have argued that that should be the first instalment of House of Lords reform and that the Government are approaching the issue the wrong way round. "Clarify and reform the functions of the House of Lords first," it is argued, "and then deal with the secondary issue of the composition of the second Chamber." However, composition is not a secondary issue—it goes to the heart of the legitimacy of everything that the second Chamber does. Whatever improvements are made to its functions of scrutiny and revision, they will not command consent unless they are perceived to be legitimate.
	There is a practical argument for starting with the composition of the second Chamber. In any complex and contentious negotiation, there is always a case for starting with the issue that is most likely to be agreed most readily. However excruciating this House has found the question of the House of Lords' composition, discussion of its functions is likely to be at least as contentious and certainly more complex. If agreement can be reached on composition, that could create momentum towards the further reform of the functions of the House of Lords that I and many other Members believe is much needed.
	Finally, I turn to the argument that an elected second Chamber will somehow turn into a home for supine party hacks, and that the gutsy independent appointees who scrutinise legislation without fear or favour will be lost. I add two notes of caution to that argument. First, I suspect that few current Ministers would argue that election on a party ticket guarantees acquiescence in the Chamber or support in the Lobby. As for appointment producing fearless and rigorous scrutiny and improving legislation—sometimes it does, and sometimes it does not. Sometimes, it simply produces futile whim and prejudice. What actually drives that argument is a belief, which I share, that the burgeoning power of the Executive over many years needs to be cut back, along with a belief that a House of Lords appointed in whole or part would somehow help that process. The solution to the problem lies not that way, but in a more comprehensive rebalancing of power between the Executive and the legislature. However, that is an issue for another day.
	If reform of the composition of the House of Lords is completed, this issue is unlikely to be revisited this century. However, should this House fail again to resolve it—unwelcome as such a failure would be—it is highly likely for many reasons that it will revisit it again in the not too distant future. In these circumstances, I hope that Members will not vote tactically tonight in a wearily resigned determination to get something through. I hope that they will vote for what they believe is the right option for Parliament and for the country. Parliament and the country deserve better than options ranging from the unacceptable to the second best, and for that reason I shall vote against all those unpalatable options and for a wholly elected second Chamber.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he clearly was not aware of the fact—perhaps you could confirm it—that for the first two interventions, Members get an extra minute.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is indeed correct, but sometimes, when there is time pressure, although Members are perhaps aware of that fact, they still choose not to accept an intervention.

Paul Holmes: In 1973, a long time ago, I was a schoolboy aged 16, studying A-level politics, history and economics. In history, I was enthused by reading about the Liberal Government of 1906 and their battles with the people's Budget, the two general elections that followed and their success in getting that Budget through, along with the Parliament Act 1911, which undertook the first reform of the House of Lords. However, in studying A-level politics I was appalled to learn that 62 years after the 1911 Act, which was the first stage of reform, nothing else had happened and the Lords was completely unreformed.
	In 2001, aged 44, I entered this place for the first time—90 years after the 1911 Act—and found that very little had changed. There had been one limited reform, in that most of the hereditaries had gone, to be replaced largely by appointed political peers. I listened in astonishment to arguments advanced in the 2003 debate, when the House unfortunately failed by just three votes to get an 80 per cent. elected Lords, and to some advanced in yesterday's and today's debate. Some people have questioned why we need a second Chamber at all—why not have a unicameral Parliament?—although many Members have rebutted that question.
	The answer to that question is fairly clear. First, we want a second Chamber because it fulfils, as people have explained, an excellent scrutiny role in examining legislation emanating from this House. Secondly, the second Chamber provides time to reflect—an opportunity to pause to consider controversial or badly drafted legislation coming from this House. Although that check and scrutinising role will be strengthened by having an elected second Chamber, that does not mean that it will try to overturn everything emanating from the House of Commons.
	By electing the second Chamber for a 15-year term, which was suggested in the White Paper and was originally the suggestion of a former Conservative Chief Whip, or by electing Members in rolling thirds, or by electing them on the basis of constituencies that do not reflect the small single-Member constituencies but larger regional areas, or by electing them with some form of proportional representation—hopefully not the disastrous closed list system—we could create a second Chamber that, in its composition and attitude, is quite different from this Chamber. We could ensure that it always acted within the conditions of the Parliament Act 1911 that limit any delay or check to a maximum of two parliamentary Sessions—as we saw with the Hunting Act 2004—and of course was unable to delay or affect at all any legislation to do with finance.
	People have asked why the second Chamber should be elected. I find that incomprehensible, because we are a democracy in the 21st century. I am a citizen, not a subject. I want the people who pass the legislation that affects my life and the lives of my children and future grandchildren to be elected politicians, not appointees.

Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Holmes: No, I will not. There is not time, because a lot of people wish to speak. [Interruption.] I could give way only at the expense of other people.
	This Parliament should not be a feudal hangover from 400, 600 or 800 years ago. As one or two hon. Members have said, all the arguments that we hear as to why the second Chamber should not be elected are the exact mirror image of everything that was said back in the 19th century, when at various stages reform of this place proceeded very slowly, like extracting teeth very painfully from unwilling people. In 1832, when a radical proposal to extend the franchise from 2 per cent. of rich landowning men to 5 per cent. of rich landowning men was put forward, people in this House fought it tooth and nail. It was first proposed in the 18th century, but it was some 40 years before the House even got to consider that proposal. The same arguments were advanced in 1867, when the franchise was extended further, although still not to all men, let alone to women, which did not come until the 20th century.
	In 1874 we heard all these arguments when it was suggested that we should have a secret ballot. How outrageous that voters should be able to vote in secret! Much better that they could vote in public, so that their employer could exercise due influence by sacking them if they voted the wrong way; so that their landlord could exercise due influence by evicting them if they voted the wrong way; so that the mob in the street could exercise due influence by beating them up if they voted the wrong way when they stood on that public platform. Those were things that happened all the time in the 18th and 19th century. It is appalling that, in the 21st century, in 2007, people come up with all these arguments as to why we should not have democracy.
	Then we heard the argument that we should not democratise the second Chamber because it is full of experts. A number of hon. Members have referred to this, and pointed out that if, for example, someone is appointed to the second Chamber because they are an expert on in vitro fertilisation and health issues in general, that does not make them an expert on the other 95 per cent. of discussion, debate and legislation that is considered in the House of Lords. If someone is there because they are an ex-vice-admiral, ex-air vice-marshal or defence expert, does that mean that they are qualified to talk on the health service and so on?
	If we want expert advice, we employ expert advice. We bring expert witnesses before Select Committees. Both Government and Opposition use experts to draft legislation. We do not appoint experts to govern our lives. I know that that is something that is creeping into the democracy of this country. A lot of local government has had its power stripped away; it is being given now to the quangocracy. There is the Learning and Skills Council, which spends £9 billion of public money and is accountable to no one. If I ask a Minister about the Learning and Skills Council I am told, "Oh, you have to ask them; that is not our business any more," but it is spending £9 billion of taxpayers' money. There are the primary care trusts, and the regional development agencies. There are the Government regional officers who march with their jackboots into the housing department of Chesterfield borough council, wanting to know why we have not privatised the council housing, although the council tenants have voted overwhelmingly not to do so. If it was down to me and to my party, all that power would be devolved back to accountable, democratic bodies. And there is the idea that experts should run the whole of local government, and run the second Chamber—why not this Chamber?
	One hon. Member even made a very eloquent case this afternoon, virtually saying that this Chamber was ineffective, and that the only effect he had ever managed to achieve was to get some appointed Members in the second Chamber to change legislation. It sounds to me like a superb case for abolishing elections to the House of Commons and appointing everyone who is here as well, which is simply ridiculous and outrageous.
	I realise that reversing all this to reintroduce democracy into local government, let alone into the second Chamber, seems very radical, but in the rest of Europe and across the United States they seem to manage it somehow. The idea that in the UK we cannot cope with democracy and self-government and devolution of power is incomprehensible.
	My preference tonight is clear. I would prefer to see a 100 per cent. elected second Chamber, in keeping with the manifesto that I, among others, was elected on in 2001, which said clearly that we wanted a directly elected second Chamber—not partly, but directly elected, 100 per cent. Equally, our manifestos of 1997 and 2005 said that we wanted a predominantly elected second Chamber. So as a second-best option, I will go for the 80:20 split, but I would much prefer to see a fully elected second Chamber.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Holmes: No, I will not give way because I have very little time and other people wish to speak.
	If we do get the 80:20 split, which we missed by only three votes last time—there are more Liberal Democrat MPs than last time, and more hon. Members from the two other large parties have said that they have changed their mind, so there is a good chance of that—the 20 per cent. appointed should under no circumstances contain reserved batches for certain preferential interest groups. They should all be subject to the independent Appointments Commission. The idea that we should take a particular religious group and give them an automatic position in that legislature is outrageous. No one else in Europe has it. Some people say, "But it is traditional since the days of Henry VIII and the reformation." Well, it was traditional to have an absolute monarch, and we got rid of that with the civil war and the glorious revolution. It was traditional to allow only 2 per cent. of the population to vote, but we got rid of that. I hope that tonight we can finish what the Liberal Government started in 1911.

Tom Levitt: It is a pleasure to follow my Derbyshire colleague, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), although I reach different conclusions on this issue as on many others. Having said that, I am in accord with my next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), and with my hon. Friends the Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson). One of the issues that they all mentioned was that this debate should first be about what we want the other Chamber to do. It should have a role in revision, scrutiny and holding the Government to account, and it has had a role in the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure that has been developed in recent years. However, the gaping hole in our procedures is post-legislative scrutiny, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said, scrutiny of the quangos.
	The reason we have to have the argument about the powers of the Lords first is that different people will be attracted to serve in the second Chamber—whatever the mechanism for getting there—depending on what we decide we want it to do. We all agree that the second Chamber must be subservient to this Chamber, but it follows that the structure must ensure that. I have to say to my very good friend the Leader of the House that simply saying, time after time, that the other Chamber will be subservient will not make it so; hence we have to have a structure that will do so.
	I do not believe that a fully elected Chamber can be anything other than a rival to this Chamber. That will be how it sees itself, how the media see it and how the general public see it. Some people have said that it is possible to have two chambers that are both elected but are not rivals. They say, "Look at the United States, look at France." But in both those cases, both chambers are subservient to the President and that is a completely different scenario.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there are some 37 Parliaments with two elected chambers, not all of which have a presidential system? All of them have a clear primacy for one chamber, where that is part of their system.

Tom Levitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and I hope that what I have to say towards the end of my speech will give her some cheer. I am in favour of accountability, although I would not want the same universal franchise to be used.
	Just as each one of us claims a mandate for being here because we were elected on a manifesto and because of the commitments that we made to our electorate, so would anyone elected to the other place. There is no way round that. The Minister, in her opening speech, prayed in aid the Salisbury-Addison convention, which is the basis of current subservience. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras pointed out, there is no way in which a differently elected Chamber would regard itself as being bound by that same convention. A Chamber with a different structure will demand, and reasonably expect, a different relationship with this Chamber. The Minister implied that a relationship defined by this Chamber alone would be acceptable, but I doubt that it would be acceptable even now to the present House of Lords.
	Another issue is that of legitimacy within constituencies, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South. I do not want an elected Lord, voted in on the popular franchise from a regional or local list, wandering around my constituency with a contrary mandate in his pocket but no casework in his briefcase, in effect campaigning against me seven days a week and serving to undermine my democratically elected position and that of all the Members of the House of Commons. That sort of behaviour would further reduce Parliament to a bear pit in the eyes of the public, and I believe that such a constitutional rival would undermine me and hinder the discharge of my legitimate responsibilities to my constituents. That is why I want to reject a largely elected element in the House of Lords.
	This is the second day of this debate, but so far no one has argued for a small elected element in the House of Lords, as that would not achieve the aims of any side in the argument. The result is that we have only two options, a hybrid second Chamber, or an appointed one. However, the hybrid option presents many problems.
	Among others, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) argued eloquently yesterday that the hybrid option was in many ways the worst possible. A hybrid second Chamber would pose the same difficulties in respect of legitimacy and challenge as I described earlier, but they would not be confined to its relationship with the House of Commons. On the contrary, those problems would exist within the second Chamber itself, and could lead to recurring stalemates there.
	For example, the Labour party in 1997 was committed to electoral reform. We asked Lord Jenkins to look at the options, and he produced a very good report that was ruined by its proposals for top-up Members—an arguably inferior category of Member. Exactly the same thing would happen in any hybrid House of Lords.
	In a couple of interventions yesterday, I mentioned the suggestion that people should be elected to the House of Lords for a single, 15-year term. I noted then that we are made accountable by the fact that we are elected, but that we are held to account by the fact that we must put ourselves up for re-election. It is when we put ourselves up for re-election that we ask that we be judged by what we have achieved.
	However, a period of 15 years in the second Chamber would allow plenty of time for people to forget what someone had done. In addition, the fact that it would not be possible for Members to be re-elected means that there could be no true accountability.

Patrick Cormack: Is not there an added complication, in that there could be no by-election if a Member were to die towards the end of his term? Instead, he would be replaced by someone lower down the list.

Tom Levitt: I had not appreciated that nuance, but it certainly adds to my argument.
	I believe that an elected Chamber at the other end of the Corridor would be bad for the Commons, and that a hybrid arrangement would be bad for the House of Lords. Therefore I can vote for only one of the options—an appointed Chamber. However, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was setting up an Aunt Sally when he described that arrangement: asking for a system of appointment is not the same as asking for a system of patronage, which would mean that a small group of people or an individual could appoint Members of the second Chamber.
	We need to create a framework in which employers, unions, religious bodies, universities, councillors, public servants, young people's organisations, the professions, the political parties, charities and the voluntary sector are allocated a number of seats. They would then be told to create their own systems for electing people in their virtual constituencies to the second Chamber. They would devise ways to hold those people accountable, decide how much time must pass before they must face re-election, and so on.
	In tonight's votes, I shall vote to retain the second Chamber. I shall also vote for the appointed option although, for the reasons that I have set out, that will not be a vote for the status quo. I shall vote against all the hybrid options, and for the removal of hereditary element, sooner rather than later. I should like to be able to vote for the removal of the bishops' automatic right to sit in the House of Lords, but that amendment has not been selected.
	I hope that we will be able to look at the interpretation of the word "appointment" to ensure that the second Chamber is genuinely accountable and diverse, with positive powers of scrutiny. We need to achieve for it a truly democratic system that neither challenges the primacy of the Commons nor sows the seeds of its own destruction in the Lords.

Andrew Tyrie: Everybody has their favoured constitutional arrangement. We have just heard another one. No scheme is perfect, so all we need to decide is whether we can do better than the current House—not whether a perfect House can be created. For that we need answers to three questions—on functions, powers and composition—and we have already come close to answers to two of them.
	We need an effective second Chamber, particularly because no doctrine of powers buttresses freedom in Britain. We have no body of higher law so we are uncomfortably dependent on the exercise of self-restraint by the Executive. More than most countries we need a constitutional long stop. That is especially the case under this Prime Minister, although the accretion of power to the Executive at the expense of the Commons has been taking place for a long time.
	There are unicameralists in the House and their case needs answering. Some say that the answer is to beef up the Commons, which is theoretically plausible but unlikely to succeed, judging from the experience of the past 30 years. Nor is the current House of Lords capable of performing the constitutional role I would ask of it, and the evidence of the 100 years since the Parliament Act supports that view.
	There is increasing agreement in this place about powers. The existing powers of the House of Lords would probably enable it to do a decent job, but the problem is that it does not have the self-confidence to exercise those powers. The Parliament Act has rarely been used, and in 100 years the power of delay for one year has hardly ever been called on, so if the House of Lords had the self-confidence to use its powers, that suggests that it has concluded that all but the half dozen pieces of legislation on which the Act has been exercised in a century were all right. Of course, we all agree that that is not the case. In retrospect, we all think that the House of Lords could have done a better job on the poll tax and on some of the Home Office legislation of the past few years.
	We probably have agreement on the powers, but we do not have a mechanism for the House of Lords to use them effectively, and that all comes down to composition, which we are discussing today. It is indeed the only issue we are discussing today. We are not signing up to the White Paper; we shall be giving an indication of the composition we think the House of Lords should have.
	In the 21st century only a Chamber backed by the legitimacy of the ballot box can hope to perform a meaningful constitutional role. The principle that the electorate should decide upon whom to bestow authority to legislate over them seems to me quite unanswerable. However devised, an appointed House will always be perceived as an adjunct to the Executive or as the creation of establishment patronage. There is no evidence that an appointed House would feel more empowered than it does now to perform the functions we want it to perform. An independent Appointments Commission certainly could not do the job.
	Where does my party sit on all this? I note that for the past five years the Conservative party has supported election. I note, too, that the current leader of the Conservative party has strongly supported a largely elected second Chamber, as has the leader in the Lords. However, when some of us put forward such arguments, we are sometimes treated as dangerous radicals, as if we were taking great risks with the constitution.

Patrick Cormack: You are.

Andrew Tyrie: For most of the last 100 years the considered position of the Conservative party has been that there should be considerable further reform of the House of Lords. Churchill, Hailsham, Carrington, Alec Douglas-Home, Lord Blake and Lord Mackay all came out in favour of a largely elected second Chamber. That is quite a long list, over quite a long period of time. The Conservative party has been quite consistent, but has not implemented what it has consistently argued. It has been bicameralist, reformist and largely democratic. That is what I hope that we will vote for tonight.
	The customary arguments against that view have been adduced. I will go through them briefly and just say a word about them. Most of them are bogus arguments, but some have some strength and need careful thought. First, there is the gridlock argument, which says that as soon as there is any election in the other place, there will be stalemate in British political life. But that is to ignore the Parliament Acts, which ensure that the delay can last for only one year. The matter was examined in considerable detail by Lord Mackay of Clashfern and he concluded that this was a "sterile debate" and dismissed it as an issue that should not be seriously considered.
	Then there is the issue of the replication of the House of Commons and the idea that we will end up with two Houses that look identical. Different electoral systems, involving long and non-renewable terms, will create different Houses. Every other country that has a bicameral system has discovered that and it seems to work perfectly well in most of them. Some argue that the people whom we will get in the other place are the wrong people. As has been pointed out throughout the Chamber, that has been the argument against democratic reform for 150 to 200 years. That is what democracy is all about: we just have to accept the kind of people who will come forward. Incidentally, in criticising the kind of people the electorate put forward and claiming that the electorate have got it wrong, we are criticising ourselves.
	I have already alluded to the third argument against doing anything, which is that the primacy of the House of Commons would be undermined. We are the sole source of government. I see no practical way in which that could be challenged. Our elections provide, and will continue to provide, judgment day, when a Government can be thrown out. Some say that, even if the primacy will not be eroded, there will be a rivalry between the two Houses. I favour some competition between the two Houses. I want an element of friction to help to revive this place, which is dangerously weak in its ability to hold the Executive to account.
	I have been passed a message to say that we are pressed for time to get all the speeches in, so I will not linger much longer, except to say that, as another speaker pointed out a moment ago, this issue is not going to go away if we do not get a clear answer tonight. We will be back here—I have already been here several times over the last 10 years—having the same debate all over again. Most people are agreed that our democracy is not in as healthy a state as we would like. It needs improving. Reform of the Commons and the Lords can play a part in that. The electorate clearly are not content with what they are getting. We must respond to that. All three major parties in the House of Commons say that they favour at least some election. Surely now is the time to send a clear signal and to vote for more than one of the democratic options tonight to secure some fundamental change to our constitutional arrangements.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Members will know that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on speeches, but if Members discipline themselves to a little below 10 minutes, I think that everybody who is trying to catch my eye will be successful.

Mark Fisher: If we vote tonight for a second Chamber that is either 80 or 100 per cent. elected, we will be taking a long stride towards completing our democracy—a process that we have stuttered towards for hundreds of years. Heretofore, the people of this country have been denied any say in who sits and governs in half of our Parliament. That is completely against the spirit of what we have been trying to achieve democratically. We have had half a democracy and half a democratically elected Parliament. We have the chance tonight to end that and I hope that we do so.
	As other hon. Members, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), have said, this is only part of a much wider democratic debate that we should be having. It is thus a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), with whom I find myself in permanent agreement on constitutional and political matters, on which he has always written and spoken good sense. The changes that we are considering do not represent all the political and democratic reform that this country needs, but they will form a significant part of it.
	Yesterday's debate focused on the composition of the second Chamber. Can we start calling it a second Chamber, by the way, and not the House of Lords? The White Paper says that we must get rid of the peerages, and we are considering the second Chamber of our Parliament. Given that the debate focused on composition, it inevitably gave rise to a consideration of primacy, or, more properly, the crucial question of whether reform would inhibit the power of the Government to govern. I make it clear that I will be voting for a composition of 100 per cent. or 80 per cent. elected Members. I am always amazed when people who have been elected as Members of the House through the democratic process have scruples or doubts about the usefulness of that process. I hope and expect that, unlike in 2003, the House will decide on 80 per cent., at least.
	When the time comes, I hope that we will be decisive on other aspects of the White Paper. It is regrettable that we are talking about only composition today because there are other important matters in the thoughtful and wide-ranging White Paper. Given that the White Paper is so thoughtful, however, I am amazed—and rather depressed—by the timidity of proposing a transitional period for the new democracy of about half a century. The very youngest Member of the House, and even the child of the youngest Member, will be long since gone by the time that we reach the democratic position that I hope that we all want. I hope that we will be more decisive on the transitional period.
	I also hope that we will not go for a closed-list system because that would undermine everything. That system would be a complete disaster, as has been proved by our experience of the European elections. As other hon. Members have said, such a system gives power to the political parties, but not to the people of this country.
	I hope—this is crucial to any consideration of remit and powers—that we will be considering a much smaller second Chamber. It is nonsense that the House of Lords has 740 Members, most of whom do not take part in debates. It does not need that many Members. I suspect that most of the work up there is done by between 200 and 250 people. A House of 200 people—a senate, as it were—could do its job very well. Although this might be uncomfortable for hon. Members, this Chamber is too big as well. We could well do our work with 400 people.
	The remit of the second Chamber is crucial. If we can get it right, it will resolve all the questions of primacy and competitiveness between the Houses. That is the wrong way in which to look at the two Houses. We are one Parliament. The job of Parliament, irrespective of the House, is to hold the Executive to account, to monitor what they do and to try to pass good legislation. The Houses are working together, but it has long been an appalling characteristic of both Houses that we do not talk to each other—politically, if not socially—and see ourselves as being in competition. We must rid ourselves of that stupid and limited attitude. We are both aiming for the same thing: to improve the quality of government and to hold the Government to account.
	This House has achieved primacy over the past 250 or 300 years by controlling Supply. Indeed, that has been the case for much longer than that. King John chose to go to Runnymede to sign up to a Magna Carta that he absolutely did not agree with a word of because he needed Supply. Of course, he reneged on everything that he had agreed within weeks, but Magna Carta is seen, historically, although totally erroneously, as the fundamental source of all our liberties.
	Although the control of Supply is one element of what gives this House its great power, the other element is the fact that, for the past 200 or 250 years—since Mr. Walpole—we have been the location of the Executive, rather than the monarch. That, in a way, determines the remit of both Houses. The Commons is the House of the Executive—of the Prime Minister, the Ministers and the Cabinet—and the other Chamber has a natural remit, not as the House of the Executive, but as the House of scrutiny.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said in a typically excellent contribution, and as other Members have said, there are many types of scrutiny that we do not do well, and there are many areas where we could do more. They include post-legislative and pre-legislative scrutiny, and scrutiny of the arm's length agencies and quangos that increasingly work on behalf of the Government, but that are not held accountable. Ministers duck questions and pass them on to those bodies. Much scrutiny that will, I suspect, never be carried out in this Chamber could be done in the second Chamber.
	Things would work much better, and it would clarify the distinction between the two Houses, if the other House had no members of the Executive—no Ministers—at all. We do not need Ministers in the other House; this is the House of the Executive and Ministers. If the second Chamber were free from Government patronage and careerism, and its Members were really free, within the bounds of parliamentary and political philosophy, to be independent, rigorous scrutineers, it would hugely improve the clarity of the distinction between the two Houses, and it would allow us to work much more complementarily. I notice that the White Paper mentions that point in passing, in almost just a line, but surely we must come back to the issue. Let us get the Executive out of the second Chamber and free that Chamber to be a rigorous House of scrutiny.
	I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that today's debate ought to be part of a much wider political debate on reform. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are, at the moment, in a critically weak parliamentary position. The imbalance between the Executive and the legislature has become critical, and any decision made today could play a small but significant part in improving that.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said that the debate is otiose because nothing will happen, and asked what new incoming Prime Minister would want to get bogged down in the issue. I hope that he is wrong. It is incumbent on Members on both sides of the House to ensure that, either before or after the next election, any new Prime Minister is encouraged to see, indeed is shown, how important reform is, and how popular it could be. The Prime Minister who changes the balance between the Executive and the legislature and creates a fully democratic Parliament could go down as a great reforming Prime Minister. There is an opportunity to be taken.
	We need a new settlement, a new covenant, a new Magna Carta that would clarify the democratic role of both Houses and the relationship between the Executive and the legislature. We will not have this opportunity very often; we are lucky. We may be unfortunate enough to be in a House that is decrepit, in terms of the provision of parliamentary scrutiny and the balance between the Executive and the legislature, but we are lucky to be here at a moment when we can influence it, perhaps in a way in which it has not been influenced since Wilkes. This evening will, perhaps, be a great moment. I hope that the House will have the courage to take that step, to rebalance our democracy, and to ensure that the voice of the people is heard in both Houses.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I emphasise the advice given by the Chair on the length of speeches. If it is followed, we can try to accommodate everyone who has been in the Chamber for quite some time.

William Cash: This has been a fascinating debate. It is now generally agreed by Members on both sides of the House that Parliament as a whole, and not just the House of Lords, must be reformed. I add that there should be a reduction of the overweening power of the Executive and the Whip system. That must be done on the great principles of democracy; independence of judgment; public interest; the self-government of the United Kingdom; the supremacy of our Westminster Parliament, based on the primacy of the House of Commons as the Chamber of government; legislation derived from opinions, judgment and democratic principles within the framework of the rule of law; and, above all else, the will of the electorate through general elections.
	The arguments presented by those who are against a democratically elected House of Lords have, I fear, a resonance in the reactionary arguments that were heard in the run-up to the Reform Act 1832, the reform of the House of Commons, against the repeal of our corn laws, and again in 1867, 1874, the late 19th century, 1911 and 1926, when it was thought by some inconceivable that women should have the vote.
	We must complete the democratic process after 100 years of debate. Even in the 18th century, the economic reform movement paved the way to removing the rotten boroughs, which were based on purchase by patronage and appointment by the Crown. I recall Dunning's famous motion of 1780 that the power of the Crown has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.
	What is wrong, some ask, with an appointed House of Lords? After all, it is true that many of them have performed and continue to perform an assiduous and distinguished role in the political life of the nation. But surely, it is argued, it is in the public interest to have experts appointed to legislate in their specialised field. Unfortunately, the appointments system does not stand scrutiny. It is based on patronage and, at its worst, is corrupted by the whiff of scandal.
	As to expertise, I read, for example, that one noble Lord tells us that he would not tend to vote in areas where he knew nothing about the issue in question. This is one of the so-called people's peers. I think he knows little about parliamentary ways. Legislators have an obligation to learn to participate in the process as a whole. This particular peer regards himself as an expert in matters of the European Union, but is significantly out of kilter with public opinion on the subject.
	On the more general question of appointment, as I said yesterday in an intervention, in 2005-06—this is telling—170 life peers who are not Law Lords voted in less than 10 per cent. of the Divisions, and 76 of them did not take part in any Division whatsoever. That is a disgrace. They are part of the legislative process. Why are they there at all? Furthermore, from figures that I have from the Library in relation to claims for the daily allowance, the median rate of attendance based on allowance claims was 67 per cent., whereas the median participation in Divisions was half of that—a mere 36 per cent. That cannot be right.
	The House of Lords is often described as a revising Chamber. That generalisation deserves proper study. In the past few years, few Bills have been rejected by the House of Lords and subjected to the Parliament Act. In respect of amendments to Bills, most amendments are made by the Government. The problem comes from the disgraceful number of Bills guillotined in this House, which must be stopped. This is not a reason in itself to glorify the House of Lords as a revising Chamber. Indeed, many amendments that are returned to the House of Commons are a product of the votes of Cross-Benchers with Liberal Democrats, with their zeal for certain types of legislation, including human rights legislation and some of the most permissive legislation that has gone through recently.
	Direct elections would make the House of Lords more responsive to public opinion in respect of matters relating to both the European Union and human rights. It is noticeable that the Committees in the House of Lords are dominated by acknowledged Euro-enthusiasts. I have no objection to their views. I would defend their right to express them, but I would ask that they take a rational view of the basis on which the arguments are presented. Most are contrary to public opinion.
	There is an even deeper question here. Through the European Communities Act 1972 the House of Lords and even the Law Lords are overarched in the legislative process and as a supreme court by the European treaties. The Leader of the House knows that I am right. Therefore, the House of Lords is, like the House of Commons, very much within the influence of the European Union, which is itself undemocratic and unaccountable.
	I object to the proposed open-list system—we will have to sort that out when the Bill comes before the House of Commons at a later stage—and I am extremely concerned that we are not being presented with a first-past-the-post system. I am profoundly against the patronage of the party list system, which, even if independents were allowed to stand, would in practice result in excessive control by the party leadership over the judgment of those who are elected. There is a strong case for a democratically elected House to be required to prohibit whipping in the upper Chamber in respect of legislative matters after Second Reading. If that were done by Standing Orders, it would buttress people's ability to make decisions based on their own judgment, not driven by the party Whips system.
	As for 15 years' tenure, I cannot understand why it should not be a mere five years. That would enable a more natural transition from the existing House and allow those of good standing to remain for the time being.
	On possible conflicts between the Houses, I have argued for more than a decade that it is easy to avoid that by having different electoral cycles and different constituencies, and a hybrid House of 80:20 or 60:40. However, if Lords elections and boundaries were coterminous with European elections and boundaries, I fear that that would lead to the former being dominated by European issues, which would be absurd. As my amendment shows, I would have preferred that the Chamber's functions be determined before its composition, but we are where we are. There must be drawn up in the Bill a schedule of important but restricted functions for a democratically elected House of Lords, with primacy clearly founded in statute to ensure that the House of Commons is the democratically elected Chamber of Government, with financial matters clearly reserved to it. I am afraid that I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that people are not concerned about primacy; I believe that they are. Because primacy and functions are inseparable, we must not merely rely on the conventions, but insist on statute to bring into effect a directly elected Chamber, in order to ensure that this House remains the Chamber of Government and determines questions of taxation and public expenditure.
	I have argued for more than a decade for a directly elected House of Lords, and it is time for us to make certain that that takes place.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I start in a spirit of repentance, as foreshadowed by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). In the 1999 debate on this subject, I strongly supported and spoke in favour of the unicameral option. In the 2003 debate, I strongly supported and spoke in favour of a substantially elected second Chamber—"substantially" then being the mot juste. Tonight, I will support the status quo. It will be immediately obvious that I have had a double apostasy, which has been a remarkably painless process. All those who undergo life-changing operations want to speak about it, so that is what I want to do.
	Let me offer a mea culpa and explain why I have arrived at this position having traversed the whole breadth of the options that are available to us. When I strongly supported a unicameral Chamber, it was for the simple reason that I believed that the House of Commons should take responsibility for its own actions and its own votes. I was reinforced in that by the fact that immediately beforehand I had been trying to persuade some of my hon. Friends to vote against the Government. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), I cannot boast of 37 years of never voting against the party Whip—nor 10 years, for that matter, nor even six months. On that occasion, I was hoping to persuade many of my colleagues to vote against the first Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may remember very well. A surprisingly large number of them told me that they were entirely in agreement with my view and were entirely against the Government's attack on this aspect of civil liberty, but that they would none the less vote with the Government because they knew full well that in due course the House of Lords would do its duty, which it did.
	It seemed to me that that in itself was an abnegation of the responsibilities of this House. It also seemed to me at the time that a unicameralist position would do much to reverse that. I have observed what subsequently happened and what has happened to other Bills that have passed into the House of Lords. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for pointing out that on 400 occasions the House of Lords has reversed serious parts of Government legislation, the majority of which have affected civil liberties in one way or another. On most occasions, the other place sought to affect the civil liberties aspects of Bills that the Government had passed. It is worth reflecting that this Government have passed more Bills affecting civil liberties than were passed in the whole of the 19th and the first part of the 20th century. Such Bills can be passed in this House by a majority of one vote. Bills on constitutional matters can be passed without a two-thirds majority.
	As I grew up, I suppose, it seemed to me that the essence of the House of Lords was indeed to object to that type of attack on constitutional issues, so I changed my mind and voted for a largely or substantially elected upper House. The reason I did so was on account of the belief that I have always had that the true curse of the British political system is patronage—patronage in whatever aegis or whatever system it comes. I am talking about patronage in appointments to ministerial office and patronage in appointments to the House of Lords. Because I believed that so strongly, I voted for a wholly or substantially elected second Chamber.
	That patronage, however, has been immeasurably increased in the short time that I have been here by the growth of the professional politician. There is nothing wrong with the professional politician. It is an honourable vocation: despite the predations of the fourth estate, we have an honourable vocation. However, it is unanswerable that those who come into politics as their only profession—wishing, of course, to succeed in their only profession—are vulnerable to the powers of patronage to a far greater extent than others. As a result of the catalyst of those two things, patronage has increased immeasurably.
	For that reason, I find myself—paradoxically and perversely, in many ways—changing again. I am always encouraged by the expression on the face of the hon. Member for Buckingham when I get into this kind of strife. I changed again for a reason that can be seen in the White Paper, particularly in relation to the form of election in the second Chamber. The postulation of that election is that it should be by closed or semi-closed or open list—

Jack Straw: rose—

Mark Fisher: It is up to us. We can decide that.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: We can revise it, but I am under instruction not to give way under any circumstances. However, as I am going to finish very soon, a short intervention by the Leader of the House may be possible.

Jack Straw: I would like to say to my hon. and learned Friend, as I made clear in my opening speech, that the proposal in the White Paper is only a proposal at the moment. All that we are voting on tonight are the words on the Order Paper and I have already given an undertaking that, if we get to a point where we have agreed to have an elected element, I will then sit down with other parties to discuss how the election process should take place.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and of course I accept that. I acknowledge that this is simply a paper and that it will require endorsement as legislation later. Of course that is the case, but at the moment, it is the Government's proposal and I will not align myself with bringing into effect a wholly or partly elected House, while it is still a possibility. If we had held a vote in the House and had, before now, set our faces against a closed or partly closed list system for electing Members of the House of Lords, my position would be different. However, a closed list is effectively a biometric passport for the professional politician into the House of Lords for 15 years.
	I asked myself if, in the past 15 years, professional politicians, especially from the Labour and Conservative parties, had been elected to the second Chamber on a list system, the House of Lords would have set its face against the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill and the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, and whether it would have opposed the removal of the right to elect for trial by jury. My view is that it would not have done so. For that reason, at this stage, I will support the status quo.
	I am somewhat alarmed by arriving at a position that the Prime Minister supported in previous votes. However, I take comfort from the fact that, while I have been travelling in one direction, he has been travelling in the other. I am grateful to have been called to speak.

Owen Paterson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). He is good value. I do not agree with him on this occasion but it is interesting that he has been to Damascus. However, I have not.
	We are tackling the problem backwards. We have heard much in the past few days about the primacy of this House, but the problem is the overweening power of the Executive. Fifty Home Office Bills have been introduced since 1997 and we have experienced the nonsense of clauses in some measures being overtaken by succeeding Bills. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said, we have quangos. We also have European legislation. I served on the European Scrutiny Committee and, one day, we met at 4 o'clock and adjourned two minutes later, having passed 78 documents. This House is not restraining the Executive or scrutinising legislation effectively and my constituents continually complain about over-regulation.
	We should establish the function of the House of Lords first, but that is not the point of the debate. I would welcome a stronger House of Lords that made life more difficult for the Executive and galvanised the House of Commons into doing its job better.
	The experience of the United States Senate does not bear out the alarm of those who fear an elected House of Lords. It was originally appointed by various mechanisms. An age threshold of 30 was set and the Senate was excluded from issues of Supply—raising and spending money. It was intended to be the junior House, with the House of Representatives being the proportionate House. Now that the Senate is elected, it has inevitably increased its power. It is inevitable that any elected element will give a new House authority. However, mechanisms have been devised, such as the Conference Committee, to resolve deadlock. I do not fear deadlock. We have too much law and some parliamentary setbacks might have a beneficial effect on an overbearing Executive. I would welcome some tension.
	The US Senate's most brilliant innovation was to allocate two Senators per state, regardless of population. That was originally intended to ensure that the thinly populated rural states were not overwhelmed in the legislature by the populous states that were dominated by the commercial interest. That was a clever rationalisation of the geographical distribution that the hereditary peerage provided in Great Britain.
	I have asked the Prime Minister a series of parliamentary questions, the answer to which shows a spectacular disfranchisement of the United Kingdom outside London and the south-east. I asked the Prime Minister on 14 September 2004, 24 March 2005 and 6 March 2007—I thank his office for replying this morning—
	"what the place of residence, at the time of their elevation, was of each peer created since 1 May 1997".
	Four hundred and one peers have been created. In percentage terms, the north-west got 5 per cent.; the north-east got 2 per cent.; Yorkshire and Humberside got 5 per cent.; the east midlands got less than 1 per cent.; the east of England got 7 per cent.; the west midlands got 4 per cent.; the south-east got 11 per cent.; the south-west got 5 per cent.; London got an incredible 44 per cent.; Scotland got 7 per cent.; Wales got 3 per cent.; Northern Ireland got 3 per cent., and "judicial", which means no home address, accounts for 3 per cent., too. Fifty-five per cent. of the new peers in our second Chamber therefore come from London and the south-east. That is unacceptable and it is essential for the new Lords to reflect more fairly the regions outside London and the south-east.
	I regard the Government's hybrid as deplorable: it will entrench the power of London and the south-east. The proposed list system is repellent: it will give power to those who place candidates on the party list and exclude the voters from making real decisions. The regions are also far too large. I would advocate a smaller number of peers being elected in fixed numbers—say, two or three per county or city, regardless of population. I would support a second Chamber elected with maximum terms and rolling election every five years. I would also exclude Ministers from the second Chamber.
	We have an over-mighty Executive; I shall vote for 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. as a small step to start reining it in.

Andrew Slaughter: May I say through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing me to be absent for the earlier part of the debate. I shall be accordingly brief.
	I have looked carefully at the voting options tonight. As I did so, the spirit of Khrushchev entered me, as I resolved to vote "Nyet" to them, one by one, until we come to the welcome last option, which allows me to vote yes to the removal of the hereditary principle, which is long overdue.
	I have no objection in principle to a second Chamber. I do have an objection in principle to a second Chamber that is not wholly elected. It seems to me inexcusable that part of the legislature in the 21st century could be appointed by whomsoever. The idea that those appointments could include representatives of one or a pot-pourri of religions seems positively mediaeval.
	I have no objection to an advisory body on legislation, which might be more persuasive if stocked with people of experience and ability—without the baggage of challenging the primacy of the Commons—relying solely on the power of argument. I cannot vote for a 100 per cent. elected Chamber because of the issue of primacy, notwithstanding all that has been said in the debate hitherto.
	Successful second chambers, such as the United States Senate, are elected on a wholly different basis from that of the first chamber. That option, often a federal option, has been specifically rejected in this country, most recently in the north-east referendum.

Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend and various other Members have prayed in aid the American situation. In America, however, as I pointed out earlier, both chambers are subservient to the President, so it is not a parallel to this situation.

Andrew Slaughter: That only makes my point more strongly, with regard to the be-all and end-all of the legislative system.
	However we elect the second Chamber in this country, we are likely to end up with a Chamber elected by broadly the same people, under the same electoral system, but at a different time. It seems to me that that is a recipe for stasis and gridlock. The attempts at variation in the consultation papers are artificial. A 15-year term and a single term for Members of a second Chamber are uneasy compromises between an appointed and an elected role. They are compromises, which any form of hybrid House must involve, that simply do not work.
	The major objection to a unicameral Parliament, which I support, is that of the tyranny of the single Chamber. That seems to suggest that a second Chamber is not a revising chamber, but a delaying chamber, to prevent legislation taking effect that may be intemperate, unwise or ill-thought-out. Again, the issue comes back to ourselves and our trust in this Chamber. I agree with the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) in yesterday's debate about the light that that shines on necessary reforms of the Commons: in scrutiny, whipping and the role of Government within the Chamber. If, as some Members have said, those issues are simply too large to be tackled, that does a disservice to the House. The abolition of a second Chamber would force us to address those issues. That is why I will be voting for abolition rather for than any of the alternatives that are on show today.
	Let me encourage the abolitionists among us by saying that we are not going into the dark. There is a precedent in this country for a unicameral Parliament. On 6 February 1649, the House of Lords was abolished by this House as "useless and dangerous" to the people of England. I would not go so far as to use those words now, but I will say that for 11 years thereafter—until the Restoration—despite attempts to revive a second Chamber, this House stood up to the Lord Protector and to military force as it had previously stood up to an absolute monarchy.—[Hon. Members: "No, it did not!"] The attempts were unsuccessful, but at least they were made.

Jack Straw: I am much more a Roundhead than a Cavalier, but I think it is hard to argue that the Lord Protector was in the vanguard of parliamentary accountability.

Andrew Slaughter: Perhaps my right hon. Friend did not hear what I said. I said that the Commons Chamber was a force that attempted, unsuccessfully in some cases, to stand up for itself. I spoke with my tongue a little in my cheek, but I nevertheless believe that we should have the courage of our predecessors of 350 years ago in supporting that good old cause, the true democracy of a single-Chamber Parliament elected by the Commons of the United Kingdom.

Mark Harper: My starting point is my belief that what is most important is the relationship between the Executive and Parliament, rather than the relationship between this House and the other place. I believe that the Executive is too powerful, not just in terms of the Government's ability to pass legislation but in terms of the accountability of Ministers, and the extent to which we are being supplanted by the 24-hour news media when this House is the place where announcements should be made first. As I have explored some of the options at length during Westminster Hall debates I shall not do so again now, but that is my central point.
	What we should be discussing is not merely the reform of the upper House, but the reform of Parliament. Our experience over the past 10 years of other constitutional reforms—Welsh and Scottish devolution, the botched abolition of the Lord Chancellor, and the way in which the Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced—suggests that it behoves us to think the issue through carefully, rather than rushing in and then being confronted by a raft of unforeseen consequences.
	Our key task is to consider the role that we want Parliament to have against the Executive, and how much power we want the Executive to have. We should also think carefully about the relative roles of the two Houses. As other Members have said, the House of Commons has a key supply role in providing Ministers, while the upper House's role will involve scrutiny, revising, and advising this House. Once we have established the respective roles of the Executive and Parliament and the roles of the two Chambers, decisions about composition will become more straightforward.
	That is the first debate that we should have, and the arguments in which we have engaged about the different types of election that we favour should flow from it. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), the United States Senate considered a system involving the representation of geographical regions. Depending on the function that we want the upper House to have, similar choices should present themselves in a relatively obvious manner.
	It is interesting to consider the position in other democracies around the world, several of which have been prayed in aid. The White Paper studied other legislatures, going around the world in just five paragraphs. I did not think that it did the subject justice: examples seemed to have been chosen to illustrate specific points, rather than to provide a solid base of evidence for this debate. Also, if we have not done that proper analysis of function it is difficult to see how we can properly judge the composition. That is not to say that I am against election. Many Members have made the sensible point that in a modern democracy those who make the laws should be elected. However, we cannot make judgments on the system of election until we have decided on the role that we want the legislature to undertake; discussion on that should take place first.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) claimed that if the argument that I have enunciated is adopted nothing will happen and we will have no progress, and they also claimed that by changing the form and composition of the upper House we will in some way start a process that will force Members of this House to take our responsibilities to hold the Government to account more seriously. If I were convinced that that would happen, I might well support motions this evening for some form of election in the upper House, but I do not find that argument convincing. I think that the opposite will happen: I think that if this House decides to reform the other place, that is where the reform will stop. That process will convince many Members that they have had quite enough of constitutional change, and it will provide them with an excuse to do nothing about the processes and procedures of this House. I fear that that would be the case. I have thought carefully about this matter, and I have listened over the past two days to the arguments of colleagues who hold a different opinion from mine. I challenged myself to find out whether I would come to a different conclusion, but I do not find their arguments entirely convincing.
	The Leader of House has gone on at length about the conventions of the relationship between this House and the other place. I believe that those conventions are sound, given the arrangements that we have. The Leader of the House has acknowledged that a change to a more democratic upper House would lead to those conventions being challenged. He says that the Government's position is that those conventions should remain, but I do not think that they would remain. A democratic upper House would challenge those conventions, and because we would not have had a debate about the proper role of the two Houses and the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, we would not be in a good position to make decisions on that.
	On the method of election, I agree with Members who said that a closed list system or a partially open list system would be entirely undesirable. That would entrench the power of the parties. Let me close by reading out a quote. It amuses me to quote the Professor of Government at Oxford university, Vernon Bogdanor, as he taught politics to me and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). He says:
	"For most people in England...the regions are ghosts, administrative constructs rather than constituencies...Perhaps it is because regions have so little relevance that turnout for European elections is so low—only 24 per cent. in 1999"
	and just 8 per cent. in some parts of the country. If this House ends up deciding that we need to have an elected upper House, we must make sure that the way we do that—the role we decide for the upper House, the balance between the Executive and Parliament, and the electoral system and the regions we choose—engages the public, rather than turns them off.
	I intend to vote for the status quo, not because I am particularly happy with it but because I want there to be a challenge to this House to take its responsibilities seriously in challenging the Executive. If we do not undertake any reform of the upper House, that will force us in the not too distant future to challenge ourselves and to reform not only the other place, but this place also.

David Chaytor: I want to speak briefly in favour of a democratic upper House, and in doing so I find myself—for the first time in my life, I think—agreeing almost entirely with speeches from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers. Until the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), I was, I think, almost entirely isolated on the Labour Benches—I thought that this was the progressive side of the House—in arguing the democratic option.  [Interruption.] I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher)—I was absent for his contribution.  [Interruption.] I am sure that it was very good.
	It is difficult to add anything new, but I want to pick up on the two very important points that the Leader of the House made in his opening statement yesterday. First, he said that there are many different models for second Chambers in different parts of the world, and the evidence is that different models can work in different countries, so there is no uniform, generally agreed form of a successful and efficient second Chamber. It is a matter for each individual nation to decide what kind of upper House reflects its character and purpose. As a nation that prides itself on being the mother of democracy, and which asserts fairly aggressively through its foreign policy the importance of other nations adopting democratic procedures, it would be entirely inconsistent if we did not ourselves support a wholly democratic Parliament—in both its Houses.
	Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that there is now no public support for the hereditary principle—that the public mood has moved on, which was an argument for his changing his mind and supporting having a greater proportion of the elected element. Just as during the last 10 years those who argued in defence of the hereditary principle have had to change their views completely, so those who argue for the principle of political patronage will in the not too distant future seem equally outdated. What worries me about the concept of a hybrid House is not that it would necessarily be unworkable and inefficient and could not hold the Government to account or carry out its revising functions; rather, it is that the argument for putting in people on the basis of political patronage to act as tools of the Executive in order to undermine the democratic principle seems completely in conflict with the basic principles of our democracy.
	I understand the case for having hugely distinguished people in the upper House who have vast experience, and many such individuals have made a major contribution over the years. Indeed, if the argument is good for having such individuals in the upper House, there might be a similar argument for having them in the lower House, but that is not an area that we wish to enter at the moment. It seems odd, however, that we should assume that the only way in which this Parliament can gain the benefit of advice from such experienced and distinguished people is by offering them places in the legislature. In my experience, such people have no problem in making their influence felt from outside the legislature. It is obvious that those of us who are elected need the advice of people whose knowledge on particular subjects is far greater than ours, and whose judgment will obviously be finer than ours. However, merely because they do not have places within the legislature does not mean that we cannot benefit from their knowledge and experience through a whole range of advisory and consultative mechanisms.
	At this point another issue must be raised; it may be the one thing that has not coloured sufficient of our debate this afternoon. That is the whole issue of legitimacy. Although we have mentioned legitimacy through election, I am not sure that in the debate, either today or yesterday, we have fully got to grips with the wider issue of the role and perception of Parliament in the country as a whole.
	In my view there is almost a collective sense of denial that we have a crisis in our democracy. Without overstating the case, I believe that we do have a crisis. It is not just a question of declining turnouts at general elections or local government elections, or derisory turnouts in European parliamentary elections; it shows itself in the general issues relating to social exclusion, in the disaffection of young people, and in the increasing sense of the irrelevance of Parliament, democracy and voting among many of our young people. We cannot leave those issues out of the discussion.
	I do not argue that simply introducing a strong elected, and preferably a wholly or predominantly elected, element into the upper House would solve that problem, but I do argue that it would make a contribution to solving that problem.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the primary causes of disaffection out there with the body politic is the power that the public perceive to be exercised by political parties? It is a very strong perception, which comes back to haunt us. Does he therefore agree that if we agree to a form of election, in due course, on a list system of the majority of the House of Lords, we would be doing an enormous disservice to the body politic and to this House?

David Chaytor: I do not accept completely the argument that a list system on a regional basis of the kind that is proposed is so fundamentally different from the kind of list system on which all hon. Members were elected. The only difference is that we were elected on a list of one. We were selected by party apparatchiks of a particular kind. It might be a different kind from those who would determine the membership of a regional list, which is precisely why I support the use of open regional lists, to encourage greater diversity in the candidates who put themselves forward.
	To return to the point about the wider crisis of perception, particularly among younger people, of the role of Parliament and the value of our democracy, we have to ask ourselves the question, if we were to move forward on a hybrid House—a House in which the outcome was almost rigged in advance because the decision had been taken to ensure that no party could have an overall majority, and however people voted for the 50 per cent. of elected places, the effect would be undermined completely by the 50 per cent. of appointed places—will that increase or decrease the level of interest in our democracy? What possible incentive is there for anyone to vote when the chances of influencing the final outcome are so minimal?
	I shall bring my speech to a close. I simply repeat that, for a Parliament that prides itself on being the mother of all Parliaments, a Parliament that has exported its democratic potentials, by fair means and some foul means, to the far corners of the earth, not to support a wholly or predominantly elected second Chamber seems to me a great contradiction. It seems that we are reluctant to rock the boat too much.
	I am concerned that those who are opposing a greater elected element in the upper House do so because they feel that it would undermine the primacy—the legitimacy—of this House. I take exactly the opposite view, as did the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) in his speech. That point was also made, very tellingly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), who quoted the report by the constitution unit at University college London, which spoke of the importance of intercameral partnership.
	It is completely misguided to assume that the key issue is the relationship between the Commons and the Lords, and that it is a relationship in which one Chamber necessarily loses out if the other is given greater legitimacy. We have to look at both the Commons and the Lords as part of a partnership, and the key relationship is not between the two Houses but between Parliament and Government—the legislature and the Executive.
	I do not fear the increasing challenge that may come from the Lords. I do not fear the increasing electoral competitiveness that, without question, would result from the changes that I am proposing, because I think that it will have, in the long run, a wholly beneficial impact on the capacity of this House to conduct its scrutiny functions and to hold the Government to account. We should be arguing for more democratic challenge, not less; more pluralism and diversity in our political system, not less; more regionalism and less centralism; and more modernism and less feudalism.
	I hope that as part of the reform package we will concentrate not only on the composition and functions of the Lords, but on many of the archaic, mediaeval and feudal procedures that serve as some of the biggest turn-offs not only for young people, but for citizens of all ages, in their perception of Parliament. We need a modern Parliament. It needs to have modern procedures and it needs to be democratic.

David Jones: This has been a fascinating debate and it is clear from contributions from Members on both sides of the House that there is overwhelming support, with a few exceptions, for the continuance of a bicameral Parliament. The issue that falls to be considered by the House today, however, is not the function of the second Chamber, but its composition and the means of arriving at that composition. That is the wrong approach.
	If the proposal is that the second Chamber of this Parliament is to be elected, whether wholly or in part, its functions should first be defined. Other hon. Members have commented, and I agree with them, that if the Lords are to derive membership of their House from election, constitutional tensions will inevitably arise in the absence of clearly defined functions. Even if the functions are defined, experience suggests that elected bodies have a tendency to seek to acquire increasingly greater powers for themselves. A case in point is the Welsh Assembly. Less than eight years after its inception, the clamour for additional powers was such that Parliament passed a second Government of Wales Act in 2006.
	The principal problem is the use of the word "legitimacy". The White Paper presupposes, and Members appear to accept the proposition, that legitimacy derives from democratic election, and that is understandable, given that the legitimacy of this House derives from a popular mandate. It is wrong, however, to take it for granted that the legitimacy of all elements of our constitutional arrangements derive from election. Indeed, many important elements do not, the most obvious example being the judiciary. Nobody elects a High Court judge or a Law Lord, but they are enormously important elements of our constitution. They make hugely important decisions in terms of public policy and are themselves lawmakers through the process of precedent. The importance of the other place to our legislative system is unquestioned, but whether the Members of that House should also be elected is dubious.
	The process of election proposed by the White Paper is also fraught with difficulty. It is proposed that Members of the House of Lords should be elected on a rolling basis, at five-yearly intervals for 15-year terms. It is said that that will legitimise the Chamber, but if legitimacy is equated with accountability it will do nothing of the sort. If a Member of the House of Lords is elected for a 15-year term with no prospect of re-election, it cannot be said that he or she is in any sense accountable. Once that Member is in, he is in. He cannot be removed unless he does something truly dreadful. He will, however, be at liberty, if he so wishes, to break whatever manifesto commitments he has made and embark upon a wholly erratic course with impunity. That Member will not have hanging over his head the sword of Damocles that hangs over the head of every Member of this House, which is the prospect of seeking re-election in four or five years' time.
	I also have enormous reservations about the validity of the list system as a means of electing a Member of the Lords. If a Member of the Lords is to be elected for a 15-year term, it means that, potentially and as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) pointed out, the next member of the list can be called to do service many years after the election, in the event of the death or resignation of the sitting Member. During that time, the replacement may have lost those attributes that rendered him a suitable candidate for elected office in the first place. Nevertheless, that individual, unless he has blotted his copybook very severely in the meantime, will automatically become a Member of the House of Lords. Indeed, I am a living example of that phenomenon. The way the list process operates meant that I was called to be a Member of the Welsh Assembly almost three and a half years after the election in which I stood. I can tell the House that being telephoned out of the blue one afternoon and asked, "Are you joining us tomorrow morning?", is not a happy experience.
	Members of the second Chamber need to bring to their task calibre, wisdom and, in some cases, specialist expertise. We do not need another cadre of elected politicians, because they would often be people whose hearts are probably really in being Members of this House.

Oliver Heald: We have had an excellent debate, and it is clear that hon. Members have a range of passionately held views. Tributes to the work done in the other place have come from all sides. For example, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), who argued passionately for a democratically elected second Chamber, paid his tribute, as did hon. Members, such as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who want no change at all. They agreed that the Lords does good work and performs an important and well known function. Speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, I should like to echo those sentiments.
	For some years, the Conservative party has supported the building of a consensus in favour of a substantially elected second Chamber. That is the view of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and of his recent predecessors—my right hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
	Of course, I fully accept that that view is not shared by every Conservative. As he made clear only a moment ago, it is not the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who referred yesterday to a little electoral difficulty of his own. I do not agree with him in this debate, but I should like to wish him well in that struggle. It is not the view of Lord Norton either, but people in this place who have studied and discussed constitutional matters in this place—and I am thinking of people like my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—have made common cause in this debate with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
	Again, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) have made common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). A substantially elected second Chamber was favoured by the late Eric Forth, and it is supported by me and by my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).
	In the debate held on 4 February 2003, Eric Forth said that
	"we require a legitimate and effective upper Chamber to do what Parliament is expected to do. What puzzles and frustrates me is that so many Members in this House seem to be afraid of that idea. The sad truth is that the main challenge to the House of Commons is from the Government."—[ Official Report, 4 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 163.]
	That point has been made time and again in this debate. It is vitally important that we reform not only the second Chamber but this one as well. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe intends to bring out proposals to that effect, and my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and for Stone spoke about that possibility in the debate. Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham rightly said that we must tackle the problem of the elected dictatorship, about which his father famously spoke so many years ago.

Nicholas Winterton: What would my hon. Friend do to rectify the dictatorship by Government? If he had told us something about that, we might have been more sympathetic to his point of view.

Oliver Heald: As my hon. Friend knows, I take the view that we should be strengthening the Committees of the House of Commons. A good start has already been made recently, as he said earlier, but there is much more we could do. Our Committees could investigate breaches of the ministerial code, for example, which would certainly improve the way in which the House operates.

Nicholas Winterton: Tinkering.

Oliver Heald: It is not tinkering, and there is much more that I could say to my hon. Friend about those proposals if they were the subject of the debate.
	It is important to bear in mind the fact that part of the Conservative tradition is to try to make the second Chamber effective, so that it is capable of effectively revising our legislation, and with the introduction of life peerages and the work on disclaimers, the Conservative party has always been determined to ensure that effectiveness. Winston Churchill was in favour of an elected second Chamber as long ago as 1924, so it is time we attended to it. The views of Winston Churchill at various times of his life have been quoted during the debate— [ Interruption. ] They did change, but I am confident that for most of the century he was on my side of the argument in this case.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) said, it is important to bear it in mind that today we are debating the composition of the second Chamber, and not the White Paper. I agree with some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) a moment ago, when he criticised the list system. Several Members have criticised that system—the hon. Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher), the hon. and learned Member for Medway and almost everybody who spoke from the Conservative Benches. I do not agree with the list system and I certainly would not want it to be thought that we were endorsing the White Paper tonight. We are not. I do not agree with 50:50, which is in the White Paper; nor do I agree on a number of things, such as the way the Appointments Commission works, the idea that we would end up with a House of Lords of 800 Members, cost issues and so on. However, we are not talking about that tonight; we are talking about the composition of the second Chamber—whether we want it to be a Chamber that is about democracy, with enhanced legitimacy, or whether we want to support the status quo.
	An issue raised by several Members, including the hon. Members for Sunderland, South, and for Tyne Bridge and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield was whether it was right for Members of the second Chamber to be elected to serve only one term. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say on the one hand, "I don't want somebody called Lord Sunderland poking his nose into my constituency", while on the other saying, "Oh, but those people will not be accountable because they won't have to fight an election". The reason why they should serve only one term is so that they do not poke their noses into constituency work or try to do the work of the Commons. The one-term proposal is a protection, to stop that happening.

Patrick Cormack: How on earth could one guarantee that a man or woman elected for 15 years would not poke his or her nose into things? They would have total freedom to do whatever they liked—for example, to embarrass the sitting Member, especially if he were of a different party. What my hon. Friend says is nonsense.

Oliver Heald: How many of the MEPs in my hon. Friend's region can he name?

Patrick Cormack: All of them.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) seemed almost to imply that people who are elected are inevitably duffers. We should have a little more self-respect than that. Obviously, there is a case to be made for certain great individuals who could add something to Parliament; there could be a small percentage—perhaps 20 per cent.—of absolutely superb figures such as those who have been described. However, I rather agreed with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes)—although it is not something I make a habit of doing: in this Chamber we have people of genuine ability who can speak with authority in major debates. If I think about military issues—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot accepts this point—we have people with fine military careers, who have served in recent conflicts, and who can come and talk in debates. Those people are elected. Equally, on the economy, we have people in this House who are former FTSE 100 company directors, stockbrokers, City solicitors—

Peter Bottomley: Spivs?

Oliver Heald: No, not spivs. People who have been experts in economic matters, such as analysts with the major broking houses. When it comes to medicine, we have people in this House who are surgeons, physicians, general practitioners, former nurses, dentists and pharmacists. In information technology, we have heads of computer units from major institutes and directors of IT. In science, we have research chemists. This place is not somewhere that attracts people with no ability, no skills and nothing to offer. We should be proud of the composition of this House.

Julian Lewis: It is absolutely true that we have many people who were well on their way to becoming experts, but who were then diverted into a full-time parliamentary career and therefore could not reach the top of their profession. For example, with the greatest respect to my colleagues who served in the armed forces, perhaps they could have become Chiefs of the Defence Staff one day, but they did not. The question is: are we to be deprived of the wisdom and knowledge of Chiefs of the Defence Staff who are currently serving and able to help us in the other place?

Oliver Heald: That is the reason for the 20 per cent., but let us not kid ourselves: the people who have been there on the front line doing the work are in this House.  [ Interruption. ] I have paid a tribute to the other place, so I do not think that I should be criticised for being churlish about it. I am not being churlish, but I do think that we should be a little more proud of what we have in this House.
	The other point that I would make about the all-appointed option is that it means removing the hereditary peers with absolutely no reform. We were promised that it was a binding commitment by Lord Irvine that the hereditaries would stay as the guarantee of reform. Are we really going to accept the all-appointed option? The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge must accept how unfair it would be. By 2010, Labour would have a 10 per cent. lead in the other place, by 2017 a 15 per cent. lead and by 2027 a 20 per cent. lead. The pernicious side to his proposal is that he would fix in stone the current demography of the House of Lords, which is disadvantageous to the Conservative party.

David Clelland: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to what I was saying. I am not arguing for the status quo; I am arguing for a reformed second Chamber. If he looks at the White Paper and the proposals before us, he cannot miss the word "reform" in the context of the reformed appointed Chamber.

Oliver Heald: What the hon. Gentleman suggests is disadvantageous to the Conservative position. The hereditaries would go and the current membership of the other place would be fixed so that, taking into account the fact that the Conservative peers are older than the others, we would be stuck with the situation for ever. The new appointments system is extremely damaging. It would be bad news for the Conservative party.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Oliver Heald: No, I will not. I am still replying to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge. I have not got long.
	In the old days, they used to talk about the old Conservative backwoodsmen. They did not turn up all that often, but they used to sway the votes. That is what it would be like in the other place under the hon. Gentleman's option. The Labour or Blair backwoodsmen—all those people appointed over the last few years—would come in to sway the votes and ruin things for a Conservative Government.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Oliver Heald: I have not really got time. I am sorry, but I am on an agreement.
	I agree that both the House of the Commons and the other place do excellent work and that our politics is basically decent. That point was made many times in the debate. But there has been considerable public speculation about sleaze and concern about donations, favours, cash for peerages and that sort of patronage. The 80:20 option in the other place would mean that the politicians would be elected and the other 20 per cent. would not be party people. We would squeeze out the patronage and that would give us a clean start. We need a Parliament that is about the people, rather than the politicians.

Jack Straw: We have had an interesting two days of debate. I am glad that 46 hon. Members from both sides of the House, excluding Front Benchers, have spoken. We have had a vigorous debate, and I am pleased that it was possible to ensure that we had two days of debate, rather than the customary one. It is worth pointing out that I accepted 24 interventions during my opening speech yesterday, given that I will not be able to take quite as many today, although I have made a couple of promises.
	There were many speeches that I could commend, especially that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). I did not agree with a word of it, but he entertained the House hugely, mainly at my expense. He went on to describe, with his customary understatement, the proposals that are the centrepiece of the White Paper—we hope that they will be the subject of the majority votes—for a mixed-membership House as "gibberish" and "constitutional suduko". To paraphrase him, albeit only just, he said that they put at risk 800 years of the evolution of this House. My right hon. Friend was good enough to say that I was not only his right hon. Friend, but his good friend, and the same applies to him. I have got to know him extremely well over the past 30 years. One thing that I have found out about him is that he uses his most extravagant language when his points are weakest.

Gerald Kaufman: You ain't heard nothing yet.

Jack Straw: Touché. My right hon. Friend was the Front Bencher who led for the Opposition in the first Bill Standing Committee on which I served, so I have learned at his feet, and I think that I know him pretty well. He dismissed a point made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) when he asked my right hon. Friend why he had not expressed his reservations about a mixed-membership Chamber in the terms that he used today in the royal commission report that he signed. It was uncustomary that my right hon. Friend said that if one examined the small print with very great care, or listened carefully, one could spot the odd word or two that distinguished him from all the other members of the royal commission. That might be the case, but although we have all gone on journeys of conversion during the course of this great argument about Lords reform, given that he signed up to the report, given that it included a whole chapter on mixed membership, and given that there was not a single word expressing a note of dissent signed by him, it is self-evident, I suspect, that at the time at which he agreed to the report, he thought that there might be an itsy-bitsy bit of merit in a mixed-membership Chamber of the kind that we are proposing.

George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jack Straw: Another friend. My right hon. Friend will have to be terribly brief because I do not have much time.

George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend remind us of the point of his political evolution at which he changed his mind on proportional representation?

Jack Straw: Never. When my right hon. Friend was in the Home Office with me and the party decided that it wished to go for a closed-list electoral system, we, as loyal servants of the party, set about advising the House to accept that. After a very long journey, thus was the case. I note that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) now seems to think that there is some merit in the system. He thinks that one thing that endorses the use of the closed-list system for the other place, which I do not support, is the fact that no one knows who the hell the current MEPs are.

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Jack Straw: No, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, because I was not really dissenting from him.
	May I deal with the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, and explain why I advise all right hon. and hon. Friends, whatever side of the argument they are on, to vote against it? Under the final motion, we propose
	"That this House is of the opinion that the remaining retained places for peers whose membership is based on the hereditary principle should be removed."
	We can argue about what will happen once the hereditaries are removed, and the subject will come up in any Bill that is introduced. Some say that we should simply end the by-election system and allow the remaining hereditary peers to sit in the Lords as if they were life peers. I think that there is much merit in that suggestion, but I may be in the minority; others have more radical proposals. The issue will have to be sorted out in cross-party discussions in both this House and the other place. A debate on the subject will take place when the next stage of reform takes place.
	The Opposition parties' amendment would add the following words to the end of the motion:
	"once elected members have taken their places in a reformed House".
	The Opposition parties are wrong to imply, as they do in their amendment—simply through inadvertence, I think—that that was no part of what my noble Friend Lord Irvine of Lairg set out in the House of Lords when he announced the agreement that led to retaining only 92 hereditary Lords. What he said is correctly set out in paragraphs 3.27 and 3.28 of the White Paper. The word "election" is not mentioned at all; the words that he used were
	"until the second stage of House of Lords reform has taken place."
	For the avoidance of doubt, I spoke to my noble Friend, the former Lord Chancellor, this morning, and he authorised me to say that the passage in the White Paper, at paragraphs 3.27 and 3.28, is a correct summary of the position. He went on to say, and I am authorised to repeat, that what was agreed in 1999 implied no guarantee of any particular stage 2. It was just a guarantee that there would be a legislative stage 2. Before the Front Benchers jump up, the reason for that is that the commitment was made even before the royal commission had reported, and still less before there had been White Papers, Public Administration Committee reports and so on.
	We are not seeking to play a trick on hon. Members; we accept that the removal of the hereditaries should take place in the context of a Bill that reflects the views of this House, as expressed in the votes today, the views subsequently expressed by those in the other place, and any agreement that we can reach. As a matter of historical record, it is simply not the case that what was said in the other place was linked to the inclusion of elected Members in the House of Lords.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for generously giving way. It was absolutely clear from what was said in the other place by the then Lord Chancellor that the hereditary peers would not go until reform of the second Chamber had taken place. Indeed, from what the Leader of the House just said, that is what the noble Lord Irvine has confirmed. What the Government are proposing in their motion is that the hereditary peers should go, without reform having taken place. That is the point addressed by the amendment.

Jack Straw: Well, I am sorry, I disagree with the right hon. Lady. I have made my point. Hon. Members can vote for any proposal for reform, including the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) wishes to pursue, which is an alternative type of reform. It is not true to say that he is not in favour of any reform, although I do not happen to agree with him. Hon. Members could also safely vote for the declaration that simply reaffirms what was determined back in 1999.

David Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: I have very little time, but I will give way quickly to the hon. Gentleman.

David Heath: I am most grateful to the Leader of the House. He knows that we want to get rid of the hereditaries, and he also knows that we believe that it would be entirely perverse if the House voted against a fully appointed House this evening, but the Government then created a fully appointed House by removing the hereditaries without introducing a democratic element.

Jack Straw: The Government intend to bring forward, after consultation, what I think will be a draft Bill—that may take time—that reflects the will of the House and of the other place, as far as we can accommodate them. We will listen with care to what the House of Lords says next week. We have no intention of bringing forward a Bill that simply removes the hereditaries, if the House decides on one of the other alternatives—on one of options 1 to 8 on the Order Paper. It would be mad of us to do so, because the House would quickly amend it. As a matter of record, it is not the case that my noble Friend Lord Irvine tied the undertaking to having elected Members, and it is important that we are accurate about that.
	May I deal with the point raised by many hon. Members about the preferred semi-open list system or semi-closed list system—I draw particular attention to the hon. Member for Chichester—that was proposed in the White Paper? I have listened to almost all the 46 speeches that have been made in the Chamber. The best that can be said as a summary of the proposal for the semi-open list system, which has been my preference, is that it is judged as better than the closed-list system, but not much more.
	We are bound to take account of the voices in the Chamber and the serious objections that have been raised to that proposal. When right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House come to vote, they are not being asked at all to endorse the contents of the White Paper. We could have tabled a resolution—I thought about it—endorsing the White Paper. We decided not to do so because that would be too contentious and lead to us disappearing down all kinds of rabbit holes. Instead, we tabled very simple resolutions in terms that are clearly understandable. When the House votes on those resolution, I promise that those words, and those words alone, are all that will be indicated as a result of the vote.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I accept what the Leader of the House says. Are we not, though, being asked to vote for a majority—a large number—of elected Members, having no idea at all of the system of election that will take place? Is not that the danger?

Jack Straw: That is like the argument about functions before powers or powers before functions. We can go round and round. If we want to see reform, we must take a key step on the road to reform. I am glad to see the Liberal Democrats nodding. I beg of them to follow their own manifesto commitment, which did not mention 100 per cent., although it spoke of a predominantly elected House, which is 60 per cent. as well as 80 per cent.
	I promised the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that I would give way to him, and this is for the last time.

Bernard Jenkin: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for delivering his promise. He mentions powers and functions. Can he be clear that those will have to be included in any Bill that leads to any form of election? That will therefore be a large and complex Bill, and a very large constitutional change, perhaps meriting a referendum.

Jack Straw: Let me deal with that. Central to the argument of those in favour of an elected element in a reformed House is, first, that the current composition or any wholly appointed Chamber fundamentally lacks legitimacy through the consent of the people whom they represent. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in a characteristically robust speech, said:
	"We are in the 21st century, and if any new state proposed a new constitution, and suggested having an upper House that took the same form as ours, it would be regarded as utterly ridiculous. We are talking about legislators."
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) put the case in a different but important way when she said that the current unsatisfactory situation reflected
	"a deeper problem—an inability . . . to make sense of our new British identity",
	and she added that
	"we need institutions that reflect our diversity."—[ Official Report, 6 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1430-58.]
	My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) made the critical point that democracy is a value, not a process.
	The second argument advanced by those who are in favour of reform is that that could lead to a more vigorous and a more active Lords. I agree. It will lead to a more vigorous and more active Lords. I offer this reflection after 18 years in opposition and 10 years in government. Over that period, thanks to the introduction of departmental Select Committees in 1979 by the then St. John-Stevas and many changes that we have introduced, the level of scrutiny and activity of this place has greatly improved from the 1950s and 1960s. A former senior Commons Clerk, Michael Ryle, stated:
	"Simple factual comparison with the 1950s and early 60s shows that Parliament—particularly the House of Commons—plays a more active, independent and influential role in Britain today than at any time for many years."
	However, I accept that the appearance is otherwise, for two sets of reasons. First, we had 11 years of strong, big-majority Governments under Margaret Thatcher, as was, and we have had 10 years of strong, big-majority Government under this Administration. One of the strengths of our system is that it usually does deliver strong Governments. By such means, we have avoided the paralysis and decrepitude of so many overseas Governments formed in shaky coalitions.
	Secondly, in recent years, for a variety of reasons, government has become stronger in any event. I defend that, too. However, good, strong government requires a strong Parliament—a stronger House of Commons as well as, I suggest, a more vigorous and active reformed Lords. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said, quoting Meg Russell and Maria Sciara of the constitution unit,
	"A stronger upper House does not necessarily mean a weaker lower house—indeed possibly quite the reverse."
	Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said:
	"Primacy means that the House of Commons must have the final say—I agree with that—but it also means that we must allow ourselves to be challenged, and not challenged only on those things that it is convenient or okay for us to be challenged on, but on those things that it is difficult for us to be challenged on."—[ Official Report, 6 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1447.]
	The anxiety that the other place will do more of a job than we now expect of it lies at the root of the objection to any elected element in the Lords. It is the great fear that the absolutely fundamental and distinctive feature of our constitution—that this House has primacy—will be challenged and weakened by a mixed House. To put it in the better and more concrete language used by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), it is the fear that the monopoly powers of this House, which currently exclusively decides who governs, exclusively decides on Supply and tax and spend, and has the final say on every kind of legislation except on the length of a Parliament—hardly a live issue in British politics—will somehow be challenged by the insertion of some elected Members into the other place. It is the fear that the more the other place does, the less we will be able to do, as though a reformed House would suck the oxygen out of this place. It will not. There is an answer to those who cry, "Function before form." We are already agreed on function. As the White Paper spells out, all parties are agreed that the powers of any reformed Lords in relation to the Commons, and vice versa, should, as the Joint Committee said, be the powers as they are today.
	A consequential issue was raised with me a moment ago—namely, can those powers be pinned down, and if so, how? Currently, that happens by convention, by resolution and by the Parliament Acts. The question is whether that is adequate. Again, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe gave the answer yesterday when he said:
	"If there are hon. Members who fear that there would be pressure to abandon some of the conventions, I would be content to address that through statute."—[ Official Report, 6 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1429.]
	The point that I would make time and again is that that is in our power: we have the final say over legislation. If we judge that the conventions are inadequate, as we may, we can insert provisions into the statute.
	Whatever view one took then, or takes now, there is no escaping the fact that when, four years ago, the House voted down every conceivable option for change or no change, it did not enhance the reputation of this place as the mother of Parliaments. My hope, above all, is that this evening the House will come to a clear decision. Of course, my preference is for a part-elected, part-appointed House in which elected Members will play a significant part. For that reason, I will vote for a 50 per cent., 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. elected House. I say to the Liberal Democrats that if by the ludicrous tactics they are going to employ we end up with 2003 all over again, they will have only themselves to blame.
	However, there is a big difference compared with four years ago. At the most recent general election, all the parties committed themselves to reform. As I said when I opened the debate yesterday, we have a chance to implement not just one manifesto, but three. We can set out a clear direction of travel on the composition of a reformed Chamber for the first time in decades, and we can achieve what has eluded our predecessors for decades—a second Chamber that does not challenge the primacy of this House but which is legitimate, more effective and more representative. I commend the motions in my name.

It being half-past Five o'clock, mr. speaker  put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [27 February].
	 The House divided: Ayes 416, Noes 163.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House supports the principle of a bicameral parliament.
	Mr Speaker  then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

COMPOSITION OPTION 1 (FULLY APPOINTED)

Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House is of the opinion that a reformed House of Lords should be fully appointed .—[Mr. Straw.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 375.

Question accordingly negatived.

COMPOSITION OPTION 2 (20 PER CENT. ELECTED)

Question,
	That this House is of the opinion that a reformed House of Lords should be composed of 20 per cent. elected members and 80 per cent. appointed members. —[Mr. Straw.]
	 put and negatived

COMPOSITION OPTION 3 (40 PER CENT. ELECTED)

Question,
	That this House is of the opinion that a reformed House of Lords should be composed of 40 per cent. elected members and 60 per cent. appointed members .—[Mr. Straw.]
	 put and negatived

COMPOSITION OPTION 4 (50 PER CENT. ELECTED)

Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House is of the opinion that a reformed House of Lords should be composed of 50 per cent. elected members and 50 per cent. appointed members.— [Mr. Straw.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 418.

Question accordingly negatived.

COMPOSITION OPTION 5 (60 PER CENT. ELECTED)

Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House is of the opinion that a reformed House of Lords should be composed of 60 per cent. elected members and 40 per cent. appointed members.— [Mr. Straw.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 392.

Question accordingly negatived.

COMPOSITION OPTION 6 (80 PER CENT. ELECTED)

Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House is of the opinion that a reformed House of Lords should be composed of 80 per cent. elected members and 20 per cent. appointed members.— [Mr. Straw.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 267.

Question accordingly agreed to.

COMPOSITION OPTION 7 (100 PER CENT. ELECTED)

Motion made, and Question put,
	That this House is of the opinion that a reformed House of Lords should be fully elected.— [Mr. Straw]
	 The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 224.

Question accordingly agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM (HEREDITARY PLACES)

Motion made,
	That this House is of the opinion that the remaining retained places for peers whose membership is based on the hereditary principle should be removed.— [Mr. Straw.]
	 Amendment proposed: (c), in line 2, at end add:
	"once elected members have taken their places in a reformed House of Lords."— [Mrs. May.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 329.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Main Question put:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 391, Noes 111.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House is of the opinion that the remaining retained places for peers whose membership is based on the hereditary principle should be removed.

Laurence Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The first vote tonight was on whether the House wanted to continue with a bicameral Parliament, and many of us voted aye on the basis that the House of Lords is as it is now. If we are to be offered a House of Lords that is either wholly or largely elected, some of us might vote the opposite way. Could we please be given that opportunity?

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to be drawn into that matter.

David Clelland: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has made a clear decision on an issue that was not included in the manifestos of any of the political parties at the last election. Would you expect the Leader of the House now to come to the House with proposals for a referendum, so that the people of this country can make a decision as to whether they agree with that decision?

Mr. Speaker: I will leave these matters to the Leader of the House.

Theresa May: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that in the votes that we have just had, the House has passed two motions for reform of the House of Lords, neither of which was Government policy, and given that the Government's policy for a 50:50 split in the House of Lords actually received the smallest number of votes of any of the votes that we have taken, will the Leader of the House be making a statement to this House about where the Government intend to take this issue now?

Jack Straw: I am delighted to make a statement. Let me say to the Leader of the House—[Hon. Members: "Hooray!"] As well as speaking to myself, let me say to the shadow Leader of the House that she has departed from the normal ecumenical spirit of generosity that she has adopted previously, because the truth is that if she and I and the Liberals had not worked very hard on this, we would never have delivered what is a very positive vote for change—fundamental change—in the way that we order the other place. I am delighted, both by the results and by the fact that at long last this House has come to a very clear decision.
	The other place will be discussing this issue next week. I think it is fully accepted on both sides that we are right to take our time to consider the views of the other place. Meanwhile, I shall make arrangements to recall the cross-party working group, and at an appropriate moment after discussions in that group I shall of course make a statement to this House.

Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I pay tribute to the Leader of the House, who has always made it clear that this was to be a decision for the House of Commons. The House of Commons has not just made a decision; it has made a very clear decision. I am grateful for the indication that there will be further discussion between all the parties in this House as to how we take it forward. I am grateful for the indication that we should communicate our view clearly to the other place. May I ask that we have, before the end of this Session, a commitment by the Government that in the next Session of Parliament they will proceed to implement the decision made by the House of Commons tonight?

Jack Straw: I think it is slightly premature to invite me to announce an element of the Queen's Speech at this stage; one step at a time. But I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I repeat the compliment to him. I have always made it clear that the purpose of this process was to test and then to obtain the opinion of this House. We have done so, and I am delighted that I voted in favour of one of the two options that was approved by an overwhelming majority.

Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House will recall that in the original cross-party discussions he felt that the balance of opinion and temperature was for a 50:50 split. Can we now therefore assume that these new discussions will include some of the minority parties in this House, whose feelings on this matter seem to be more reflective of the votes we have just cast than the Leader of the House thought in the original, restrictive discussions?

Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall a point of order that I raised on a previous occasion, namely that when a Government Minister rises on a point of order, it is within the discretion of the Chair to treat it as a statement in respect of which he can be asked questions. The Leader of the House has now risen to his feet twice; indeed, he said that he was making a statement. Given that, would you permit hon. and right hon. Members to ask questions?

Mr. Speaker: At the moment, these are still points of order. I allowed the Leader of the House to speak further to the points of order so that he could provide clarity to the House. Business questions are tomorrow and I am sure that hon. Members will have the ingenuity to put questions on this issue to the Leader of the House then.

Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the House has voted to abolish the House of Lords —[ Interruption. ] The House has voted to abolish the present second Chamber and replace it with something else. As that would be the most important constitutional change since about 1650, may we have an assurance from the Leader of the House—if he wishes to speak further to this point of order—that any legislation will be taken on the Floor of the House and will not be timetabled?

Mr. Speaker: We are now getting into a debate about how this matter will be handled. There will be opportunities to question the Leader of the House and that can start tomorrow. It would be inappropriate to have a debate this evening about how to proceed.

Mike Gapes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek clarification. Two of the motions on the composition of the other place were carried. One of them was carried by an absolute majority of Members and the other by a smaller majority. Which of those motions will be taken forward as the most important?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot read the thoughts of the Leader of the House at this stage.

Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although the Leader of the House may come to the House tomorrow, the results will be widely reported and it would be useful for him to explain his view of the settled will of the House. Is it an entirely elected Chamber or an 80:20 split? We should know now.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I must now put an end to this matter—

Jack Straw: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can tell the Leader of the House to sit down in the same way as I tell other hon. Members to do so. We have this evening to reflect on the decision and the House will be able to question the Leader of the House tomorrow—

Jack Straw: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House does not intend to remain seated, so I will let him speak as that may help the House on this matter.

Jack Straw: I rise to put on record information that I have communicated already to the shadow Leader of the House, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the Clerk, which is that I cannot be here tomorrow. I sent a letter to that effect two weeks ago. My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will handle business and I will be here the following week.
	I say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that I will arrange some discussions with the smaller parties in the House. On the bigger questions, we will listen to what the other place says. We have always said that, especially to those who have argued for no change. We will listen, as is our duty, and then we will discuss the next steps in the cross-party group.

Mr. Speaker: I shall now move on to the next business.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved. —[Mr. Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: For the convenience of the House, I shall put the questions on motions 14 to 18 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Employment and Training

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.
	That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.

Fees and Charges

That the draft Private Security Industry (Licence Fees) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.

Postal Services

That the draft Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

Environmental Protection

That the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 8th February, be approved. —[Mr. Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Marketing of Pyrotechnic Articles

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13568/05, draft Directive on the marketing of pyrotechnic articles; notes the Government's current negotiating line; and supports the Government's actions in this field. —[Mr. Watts.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITION

Post Office Closures

David Heath: At the end of a possibly historic day of business in the House, I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents and of the parish and town councils in my constituency. The petition deals with the closure of sub-post offices and the community.
	I draw the House's attention to my early-day motion 1031, which lists the Somerton and Frome town councils and 63 other parish councils in my constituency. All of them have subscribed to the petition, which states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of the parish councils of the constituency of Somerton and Frome.
	Sheweth that we deplore the social, economic and environmental effects of the potential closure of a substantial number of post offices in the constituency of Somerton and Frome.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urges the Government to reconsider the matter before irreparable is done to local communities.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	 To lie upon the Table.

ASHFORD INTERNATIONAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Watts.]

Michael Jabez Foster: I am grateful to have this opportunity to comment on Eurostar's ill-judged proposal to downgrade the Ashford International rail link to the continent by abandoning all services to Brussels and significantly reducing the service to Paris. It is clear that the curtailment of international services from Ashford is in direct conflict with the Government's policy to alleviate road traffic congestion, reduce carbon emissions and regenerate economically deprived areas in East Sussex and Kent such as my constituency of Hastings and Rye.
	My hope is that the Government will intervene with Eurostar with a view to getting it to abandon its ill-considered proposals. At a time when we should be celebrating the opening of the high speed channel tunnel link from London to the continent, we are facing a reduction of the service in Ashford and the surrounding area—a diminution that is wholly unnecessarily.
	On 14 November, the new St. Pancras International station will replace the Waterloo Eurostar terminal. At the same time, two new intermediate stations will be opened—at Stratford in east London, and at Ebbsfleet near the Dartford tunnel. That is all well and good, but the knock-on effect of those changes is Eurostar's proposal to abandon all direct services from Ashford to Brussels, and to reduce the services to Paris to four a day. Those reductions could herald the end of that important terminus, although I acknowledge that the company says that that is not its intention.
	My purpose today is to explain why Eurostar has got it so wrong, and why elected representatives are incensed that their concerns, and the public's, have been ignored, despite the public support for the terminal. It is worth noting that this is by no means a party-political issue. Leading the campaign against the decision is Peter Skinner, the Labour MEP for the South-East region, and alongside him are his Conservative colleague Richard Ashworth MEP, the Liberal Democrat MEP Sharon Bowles, and the Green party MEP Caroline Lucas.
	Similarly, there is support for the campaign to keep Ashford open from across the political spectrum, and that includes the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green).

Damian Green: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I hope that he gets a more positive response from the Minister than I did when I raised this matter a few weeks ago. As he said, there is an enormously wide coalition of people with an interest in the regeneration of Ashford and the whole south-east, and in the transport network, who are opposed to Eurostar's policy. That coalition includes Kent county council, the Ashford and Shepway borough councils and MPs of all parties, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) being one of them. Another interested party is the South East England Development Agency, and even the European Commission has become involved. The only relevant body that has done nothing to persuade Eurostar to change its decision is the Department for Transport—to the extent that the Secretary of State has refused even to meet me and my right hon. and learned Friend to discuss the matter. Is not that a shameful state of affairs?

Michael Jabez Foster: The Government may not yet fully understand all the circumstances. I have to say, with the greatest respect, that they certainly appear almost to be apologists for Eurostar's woeful decision about Ashford. As the debate proceeds, I hope that the Minister will realise that there are different arguments from those he may have been given by Eurostar.
	I shall explain why Eurostar's decision is such a bad idea. What are the facts? First and foremost are the effects on the environment. In this place, we are united in acknowledging the threat from global warming, but Eurostar seems to be moving in a completely different direction. We want to reduce air travel and pursue policies that favour sustainable transport such as rail, yet Eurostar seems intent on moving millions of existing and potential passengers away from rail services and making them transfer to road—to use other stations—or perhaps even to air.
	At present, Ashford is connected to the trans-European network, as is the whole of the south coast, through the link from Ashford to Rye, Hastings and on to Brighton and beyond. Only last year, Southern introduced a fast rail service from Brighton to Ashford, creating an interchange to Europe that is much appreciated and increasingly used. Similarly, towns in Kent and on the south coast have direct rail services to Ashford, thus ensuring a convenient link to Brussels and beyond through the Ashford connection. Five Network Rail lines converge on Ashford—from Canterbury, Folkestone, Brighton, Tonbridge and Maidstone. It is the perfect centre for onward rail travel to the continent. Those lines serve a population of about 1 million, in addition to the 100,000 people living in the greater Ashford area. Ashford is the natural focus for collecting and distributing traffic from a large part of south-east England through a sustainable rail link.

Norman Baker: People in my East Sussex constituency are also concerned about the loss of service, especially given the loss of Waterloo, because Kings Cross and Stratford are more inconvenient for Lewes and similar areas. The matter is serious. To pick up one of the hon. Gentleman's points, does he realise that the alternative for business people in my constituency who use the improved rail line from Brighton to Ashford will be to travel by air from Gatwick? There is lack of continuity in Government policy in relation to the Eurostar cut, because there will be more emissions when people travel by air from Gatwick to Brussels and Paris than if they used Eurostar from Ashford, as they want to do.

Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and if the decision stands, he may be right. The alternative that Eurostar is offering is a nightmare journey from the south coast—from Lewes, Brighton or Hastings—and the Kentish towns. People will have to travel on the M25, crawling and polluting their way to Ebbsfleet station, which has no effective domestic rail connections. That is bizarre.
	My first question to my hon. Friend the Minister is why do not we ask Eurostar for an environmental impact statement before the company is permitted to proceed with its foolhardy decision? Eurostar must know that the M25-M2 interchange is already one of the most congested parts of the British road system. To place more traffic on that connection will not only cause endless delays and perhaps missed trains, it will also significantly contribute to pollution in the area. Indeed, it will be easier for many Eurostar users in the south-east to travel into London and across the city to St. Pancras, which will further inconvenience passengers and heighten congestion in the city.
	The economic effects of the decision are important, too. The loss of the Ashford service will have a hugely detrimental effect on the economic prosperity of south-east England in general. Ashford is one of the country's fastest growing towns, which is no doubt due in part to its easy links to the continent. Further afield, Hastings and Thanet are of special economic interest, and have been so designated by the European Commission. Investors from mainland Europe need simple and easy links to their bases on the continent and the move away from Ashford will make things more difficult for them.
	The economic interest is even wider. Towns such as Rye, Eastbourne and Lewes—even Brighton and beyond—have through rail links to Ashford, so people can travel with ease to the continent by train. As the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) suggested, the chances of them jumping into their cars and negotiating the M25 are remote when they have the option of catching a plane from nearby Gatwick. It beggars belief that a rail company should be so short-sighted.

Michael Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to educate the Government on points that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and I have already made to them. Perhaps he would agree that we would have been able to expand on those points had the Minister been prepared to meet us. Does he also agree that, given the extent to which the track that Eurostar trains run on was publicly funded, the Government have a clear responsibility to intervene in this matter, and for them to continue to refuse to do so is a complete abdication of that responsibility?

Michael Jabez Foster: I cannot agree that it is an abdication because I suspect that the Government will be prepared to look again at this issue. However, to date, it is certainly difficult to distinguish what has happened. After this evening, I hope that that situation will change.
	Why is the Eurostar argument so acceptable to the Government? Nobody else would seem to have bought it. I suspect that it is because Eurostar has produced a number of facts that are simply wrong. If one starts from the wrong premise, one gets the wrong answer. The first argument that Eurostar makes is that the Brussels to Ashford route is little used. In the last few weeks, I have travelled back from both Brussels and Paris. I know that it is only empirical evidence, but there appear to be scores, if not hundreds, of happy passengers leaving the train at Ashford. Their existence seems to be denied by Eurostar. Why should that be so? I give two reasons. The first is that people simply buy their tickets from London. Why not? It is the same price. As a consequence, those joining at Ashford are perhaps ignored and not counted. Eurostar says that that is not quite right, because it checks things out with customer surveys. I was on the train last Friday and by the time I got on at Ashford, the customer surveys had already been sent round and were being collected back. No-one from Ashford was even in the count.
	I must also comment on what I believe to be the disingenuous dissemination of information. The "Count down has begun" booklet is apparently a set of facts that supports Eurostar's case. However, in reality it is nothing of the kind. What it says is often factually incorrect. For example, the publication suggests that the average travel time by car from Hastings to the new Ebbsfleet station—a distance of some 57 miles—is 1 hour 16 minutes. Dream on. Negotiating the A21 is a nightmare and then as a reward one joins the M25, finally negotiating the M25/M2 junction. Doing that journey in 1 hour 16 minutes would mean seeing a blue light following shortly behind. It may just be possible in the dead of night, but then there would be no trains to catch. It is that sort of disingenuous proposition that has made people so angry. The same goes for the information given by Eurostar for the rail connections. It says that Brighton is within 1 hour 13 minutes of King's Cross Thameslink. In fact, the average timetable shows a journey of between 1 hour 18 minutes and 1 hour 46 minutes. That is a considerable difference. The facts are simply wrong.
	Why is Ashford so important? Its location 45 miles out of London draws interconnecting road and rail traffic away from areas of chronic congestion around the capital. Ebbsfleet will do the reverse, increasing peak tidal flows. Ebbsfleet has a purpose, but not in attracting the current Ashford traffic. So, what do I want from this evening's debate? I want my hon. Friend the Minister to understand that this is not a cry from the wilderness on behalf of my constituents in Hastings and Rye alone. Although many of my constituents, such as Councillor Godfrey Daniel, Councillor Dominic Sabetian, Neil Perry, Rhoderick Powrie, Trevor Sheldrake, Terry Dorrity, Ann Hamilton, Simon Foster and Mike Turner of Friends of the Earth, are exceedingly exercised, this is a much wider cry than that. It is a cry that has cross-party support, with virtually no dissenting voice. I challenge my hon. Friend to find anyone who supports the Eurostar case. The campaign is currently supported by South East Partners' Brussels office, which represents local authorities across the south-east, by passenger groups on both sides of the tunnel, such as Railfuture and the Marsh Link action group, and by, so far as I am aware, not only the hon. Members who are present this evening, but the vast majority, if not all, of the region's MPs and MEPs.
	My hon. Friend should not underestimate the strength of feeling about the preservation of this vital service, with the prosperity, convenience and environment of the south-east at stake. He must not be taken in by the superficial figures that Eurostar offers him to support this dastardly deed.
	When I initially secured the debate, I thought that all that I would be able to do would be to ask for the Minister's support in my entreaty to Eurostar. However, according to an article in  The Guardian on 21 February, it appears that the Office for National Statistics believes that the British end of Eurostar is effectively under Government control because of the Government's stake in supporting the enterprise. If that is the case, I ask that my hon. Friend not only requests Eurostar to think again, but demands that it does so. In the other place, on 8 February, my noble Friend Lord Bassam confessed to a liking for Ashford, but suggested that the Government could not intervene because the previous Conservative Government had committed the enterprise to the private sector. That might have been the case, but if things have changed and the ONS is right, my hon. Friend has a further opportunity to act.
	In the short time available for the debate, it has not been possible to explore in detail all the economic and environmental arguments that are available to those who want Ashford International to prosper, and nor has there been time to dissect the paucity of the Eurostar case on which my hon. Friend might have previously relied. I thus ask my hon. Friend to meet me and a delegation of south-east MPs and MEPs, together with interest groups, so that we can persuade him, if he is not yet already persuaded, that Ashford International must be saved for the south-east of England.

Tom Harris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster) on securing the debate. I also welcome to the Chamber the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). Last October, I replied to a debate that the hon. Member for Ashford secured on exactly the same subject, so he might find some of my comments vaguely familiar.
	I know how much importance Ashford attaches to its international links, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the development of the channel tunnel rail link, the operation of Eurostar international services and the way in which the Department for Transport is working to ensure that the transport infrastructure is in place for Ashford to fulfil its potential as a growth area. I will try to address the main points raised by my hon. Friend.
	I should begin by making it clear that despite our arm's length relationship with Eurostar, which is, after all, a private company, the Government have kept a watching brief on consultations over the timetable changes. In that respect, we have noted with interest the statement from the leader of the council and chair of Ashford's future delivery board, Councillor Paul Clokie. He said:
	"We are of course disappointed at the decision to reduce the number of international train services from Ashford by Eurostar";
	but he went on to add:
	"Ashford remains one of the few places in England from where Paris and Brussels can be reached via a high-speed rail link within just two hours. The new proposed timetable includes early morning and evening trains which will meet the demands of many existing and new business and leisure passengers."

Damian Green: rose—

Tom Harris: I note that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. I suspect that we are about to replicate the exchange that we had in October. I do not want to suggest that Councillor Clokie supported the diminution in services from Ashford. I simply make the point that he can tell that the high-speed rail link will have a major economic benefit for Ashford, despite the reduction in services.

Damian Green: We will not replicate our exchange, because the Minister has chosen a longer quote from Councillor Clokie that is slightly more representative than the one that he cited before. However, as Councillor Clokie said, Ashford is the only place from which one can go to Paris and Brussels. The precise thrust of the argument is that people will not be able to travel to Brussels from Ashford under Eurostar's proposals. That is unsatisfactory not just to people in Kent, but to those in Sussex and people in the rest of the south-east—that is the nub of the argument.

Tom Harris: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but of course, it will still be possible to travel by train from Ashford to Brussels, although a change of train will be necessary.
	I do not want to dwell for too long on the borough council's views, but it is worth highlighting another point that it has made. It sees the provision of the new high-speed domestic service as being just as important to Ashford's economic growth as the international links. The council anticipates that the high-speed link will lead to additional demand for Eurostar services from Ashford in the future.
	To move on to Eurostar and its operations, it is important to be clear that the Government have no formal powers over Eurostar's operational decisions, and that Eurostar is at liberty to set its own timetables, although it has an obligation to operate on a sound commercial business. It cannot be accused of ignoring the views that have been put to it. Following the consultation with Kent county council, Eurostar agreed to introduce an additional stop at Lille on the daily service to Disneyland, to provide Ashford with a connection to Brussels. Following consultation with Ashford borough council, the company agreed to revise the timing of the first departure to Paris to suit local people better. Eurostar is continuing its dialogue with Kent county council, which is the statutory transport authority, and it has shared and explained the research and analysis undertaken on developing future stopping patterns.
	My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ashford have made comments about the Government's lack of action and intervention. Following representations made last autumn by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Ashford and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I discussed with Richard Brown, the chief executive of Eurostar, what options existed for maintaining a direct, if reduced, service from Ashford to Brussels following the opening of Ebbsfleet. So far, that intervention has had no effect. I share the disappointment felt by my hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members about the fact that all direct services from Ashford to Brussels will cease, and about the fact that the various stakeholders in the area have not come up with a reasonable package to support even a reduced service.
	It is worth mentioning that Eurostar remains committed to Ashford in at least one respect: it will retain its contact centre in the town, which provides employment for some 300 people. From the date of the opening of Ebbsfleet station this autumn, Eurostar will have 16 or 17 trains a day from London to Paris, and 10 to Brussels. Seven of the Paris trains and five of the Brussels trains will stop at Ebbsfleet. The opening of Ebbsfleet has led Eurostar to review its overall stopping patterns to reflect the expected future demand at the two stations in Kent. As a consequence, Ashford will retain three of its six trains a day to Paris, as well as a weekly service which goes to Avignon in the summer and the French Alps in the winter. Those destinations mean that 83 per cent. of current demand for direct services at Ashford will continue to be met.
	As I mentioned earlier, the daily Disney train will, in future, also stop at Lille to provide a TGV connection to Brussels. I accept that there may be some remaining demand for a direct service between Ashford and Brussels that will not be met by the alternative arrangements.

Michael Jabez Foster: My hon. Friend is using the figures that Eurostar gave him, but the truth is that they are challengeable. Does he accept that the empirical evidence is that the use of services at Ashford is substantially greater than the figures suggest? In my discussion with the chief executive, he suggested that the figures had been calculated, but no evidence has been produced to support that. The figures are simply the result of assumptions on Eurostar's part, and are based on ticket sales.

Tom Harris: I understand my hon. Friend's argument, but does he believe that Eurostar is involved in a conspiracy to deprive itself of revenue? As a commercial organisation, it must surely put in place the best commercial plans possible. He seems to suggest that Eurostar is complicit in underestimating the patronage of Ashford customers, in order to prevent people from buying tickets, and to deprive itself of crucial revenue. I do not find that particularly plausible.
	The truth is that Eurostar's assessment is that the demand for a direct Ashford to Brussels service is too small for such a service to be commercially viable. Eurostar has said that the trains to Paris will be timed to suit both business and leisure travellers, and has adjusted the departure times following consultation with Ashford borough council. Timetables are valid for a year, so there is an annual opportunity to review stopping patterns and to alter them in light of changing demand. Eurostar is committed to working with the local authorities, with the objective of helping to increase demand and, in turn, the number of services at Ashford in the longer term; that is a point worth emphasising. Plans for Ashford reflect the current position, but Eurostar has the flexibility to revise its timetable to suit future changes in demand. It is not in Eurostar's commercial interests to ignore genuine demand where it exists, and it is clear that additional stops at Ashford could be reintroduced in the future if passenger demand warranted them. It would be in Eurostar's commercial interests, if it felt that it would increase its annual profit, to reintroduce direct services to Brussels from Ashford. It is not plausible to suggest that Eurostar is in any way conspiring to deprive itself of that revenue stream.
	Since its opening in 1996, Ashford international station has provided a valuable alternative to passengers who want to use Eurostar but want to avoid having to travel into central London to join their train. The reason for reducing the number of trains stopping at Ashford is, I am told, the opening of a second station in Kent at Ebbsfleet, near Dartford. Ebbsfleet is strategically located close to the A2/M2 and M25. Eurostar has carried out very detailed research over 18 months which shows that Ebbsfleet serves a much larger catchment area than Ashford. Indeed, Ebbsfleet's catchment area is enormous, with 10 million potential travellers. The catchment area extends around the M25 and will open up new markets for Eurostar. The catchment area for Ashford, by contrast, though geographically quite large, represents a level of patronage that is substantially lower.

Norman Baker: No one is suggesting that Ebbsfleet should not open and be a successful station. What we are arguing is that it is possible to have both Ebbsfleet and Ashford. Given that the new high speed line into St. Pancras will cut journey times significantly between London and Paris and London and Brussels, there will still be a significant gain in time even if the trains stopped at both stations.

Tom Harris: I emphasise that I am not a spokesman for Eurostar, but it seems eminently sensible that when Eurostar is calculating journey times and using them as a way of attracting a particular market, it must ensure that those journey times are as low as possible. If Eurostar has made a commercial calculation that stopping every train from Ebbsfleet at Ashford will result in lost revenue because passengers will choose to travel by air rather than by train, that is a valid commercial judgment which we should expect it to make.
	Eurostar's research has shown that up to two thirds of the passengers who currently travel to Ashford will find Ebbsfleet equally or more convenient. Ebbsfleet will be served by international trains to Paris, Brussels and Lille. Eurostar believes that, following the opening of Ebbsfleet, the residual number of passengers wishing to travel from Ashford to Brussels will be less than 20 per train, too few commercially to justify a direct service. There is a serious threat that stopping Eurostar services at Ashford as well as Ebbsfleet will extend journey times, to the extent that more passengers would be lost than would be gained—a point that I have just made, thanks to the intervention from the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The majority of Eurostar customers will travel from St. Pancras, so it is important that journey times are not adversely affected by additional stops for a small number of passengers.
	It has been argued by my hon. Friend that one result of the changes will be to encourage passengers who would normally join trains at Ashford to divert to Ebbsfleet, increasing car use and causing congestion on major roads in north-west Kent. It is worth noting that some 90 per cent. of Ashford Eurostar customers travel to the station by car, and that more than half of those drive from outside the county. Ebbsfleet will be more convenient and nearer to most of those customers, and so will reduce total car use.
	It is also worth noting that more than 500,000 people per week currently visit Bluewater shopping centre, very close to Ebbsfleet. Ebbsfleet itself, by contrast, will be used by fewer than 25,000 per week. Locally, major improvements to the strategic road network have been carried out to reduce the impact of new traffic flows, and congestion will be minimal.
	I emphasise that I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and the concerns expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe and the hon. Member for Ashford, as well as the hon. Member for Lewes. I know that there is genuine concern in these constituencies that Eurostar's proposals mean that the area is being left with a substandard service. I hope that I have, although I suspect that I have not, been able to reassure hon. Members that most of the demand from Ashford will continue to be met, that there is scope to review services to Ashford in the future in the light of future changes in demand, and that concentrating services at Ebbsfleet, but not to the exclusion of Ashford, makes sense commercially, in environmental terms, and from the point of view of providing the best possible international rail service to the greatest number of passengers.
	Let me conclude by informing my hon. Friend that I would be more than happy to meet him and a delegation of parliamentary colleagues and other interested parties if he believes that that would be useful. I have already stated that I have made at least one intervention with Eurostar on this subject; whether I will be in a position to be able to do so in future to any positive benefit remains a question as yet unanswered.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eight o'clock.